PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WORKINGTON) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING BOMB ATTACKS

German Scientists

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the United Nations will regard as war criminals those scientists who have been decorated by Hitler for their skill in devising the flying bomb.

The Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I understand that the German wireless recently announced that two German scientists had been decorated for outstanding services to Germany's aircraft armament. I have no statement to make on this subject.

Sir T. Moore: As this is a deliberately indiscriminate weapon, which was, no doubt, discarded by our own side for that reason, should not the inventors be placed in the same category as the users?

Counter-Measures

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can make any statement without detriment to the public interest, about the contribution which the balloon barrage is making to combating the flying bomb.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): No, Sir—I regret that it is not at present desirable to make any further statement about counter-measures against the flying bomb.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (POST-WAR REHABILITATION)

Mr. Salt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consult the Governments of the U.S.A. and China as to the desirability of setting up, at the earliest opportunity, an expert commission to study problems connected with the rehabilitation of post-war Chinese agriculture and industry, both from the scientific and economic aspects.

Mr. Eden: I do not think it is for His Majesty's Government to suggest the establishment of a commission to study the post-war problems of the Chinese Government, though we are always happy where possible to supply such expert advice as may be asked for.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it may be desirable to explore the possibility of a market for this country in China?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Question he will see that it deals with a different matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (GOVERNMENT)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he possesses as to the formation of a new Yugoslav Government; whether an agreement has been reached between Dr. Subasitch as representative of King Peter and Marshal Tito as the head of the liberation forces in Yugoslavia; and whether Marshal Tito's Liberation Committee is to be directly represented in the new Yugoslav Government.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The formation of the, new Yugoslav Government was announced in the Press on 8th July. The terms of the agreement between Dr. Subasic and Marshal Tito were broadcast by the Free Yugoslavia wireless station on 10th July, and I understand that they will shortly be published by the Yugoslav Government.
With regard to the last part of this Question, two members of the Partisan Movement, Dr. Marusic, the Minister of Communications, and Professor Vuko-savlejvic, the Minister of Agriculture and Supply, have come direct to this country from Yugoslavia to join Dr. Subasic's Government.

Mr. Riley: Will this new Government function in London or elsewhere?

Mr. Eden: What we desire and hope ultimately to see, is a union of all Yugoslavs under one Government.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether Mr. Totalovic, head of the Yugoslav T.U.C., is coming to London?

Mr. Eden: I cannot say without notice. I think he is in Bari. He is out of Yugoslavia.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (ARMISTICE TERMS)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that no final decision as to the armistice terms to be imposed on the Nazi armies or as to the future political or territorial arrangements in Europe will be made without the prior approval of Parliament.

Mr. Eden: I can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government will follow the normal constitutional practice in these matters.

Mr. Lawson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance, may I ask whether it is his intention that this Debate should take place before the Recess?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the normal constitutional practice in these matters. Armistice terms are the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers.

Mr. Silverman: As it was made clear in yesterday's Debate that the armistice terms will last probably for a considerable time, while more permanent peace terms are being considered, is it not proper that, on this occasion, the House should be informed beforehand and invited to approve whatever conditions are agreed upon?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, certainly not. That is entirely the responsibility of the Government and the armistice terms, which concern military matters, could not be published in advance to the enemy.

Sir Percy Harris: Was it not made clear yesterday that the House supported unconditional surrender?

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this matter now.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AND GERMAN CIVILIANS (EXCHANGE)

Sir P. Harris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arrangement with the German Government for the exchange of civilian prisoners covers British subjects detained in France and those deported to Germany from the Channel Islands.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The agreement, details of which I gave the House last Wednesday, provides for the exchange, with certain individual exceptions, of all British civilians who are detained in Germany or German-occupied territories.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBERATED FRANCE (CIVIL ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a formal agreement has now been reached between Great Britain, the U.S.A. and General de Gaulle for the recognition of the French Committee of Liberation as the provisional Government and civil authority for liberated France.

Mr. Eden: There is for the moment nothing that I can add to my statement of 12th July.

Mr. Granville: Was the question of a provisional Government discussed at Washington; and do the present arrangements mean that the idea of a provisional Government has been shelved, in favour of the term "civil authority?"

Mr. Eden: This arrangement deals with the actual facts of administration, which is a most important matter. We hope it will be now settled as the result of the work done in Washington.

Mr. Granville: Will the French Committee of Liberation be consulted, or will it serve on the committee for discussing the question of armistice terms?

Mr. Eden: That is quite a different matter. We are now dealing with the administration of France.

Oral Answers to Questions — DENMARK (STRIKES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has respecting the strike in Denmark against certain enactments of the Nazi authorities; to what extent the strike was successful; and what was the approximate loss of life.

Mr. Eden: My information confirms the reports which have appeared in the Press about the recent strikes in Copenhagen. My hon. Friend will not, I think, wish me to repeat these Press reports in detail. The salient points as they have reached us are as follows:
The strikes were a spontaneous expression of Danish indignation with certain oppressive measures of the Germans, notably the curfew imposed in the Copenhagen area on the 26th June and the activities of the Schalburg Corps, a body of Danish traitors used by the Germans to dragoon the Danish population. The Germans took immediate and severe measures to put down the strikes. At this point the Danish Council of Freedom stepped in and declared that there would be no return to work until the Germans had fulfilled certain demands. The strikes were maintained until the Germans had given way on all points. There can therefore be no doubt that the strikes were an overwhelming success. We have therefore seen the heartening spectacle of the civilian population of an enemy-occupied city enforcing their demands on the German military authorities. According to Danish Press sources, 96 Danes lost their lives in this operation.

Mr. Sorensen: Is there any means by which we can express our congratulations and appreciation to the Danish people for this successful strike?

Mr. Eden: I made the statement because I thought the House would like to have an opportunity of hearing what happened.

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask if this was a general strike?

Mr. Eden: It may well be called a national strike.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be grateful to him for his definition of what constitutes a successful strike?

Mr. Eden: I am sure that we can count on similar national unity to that which the Danes have shown.

Mr. Thorne: Does it not prove the power of the workers when they are organised?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot pursue this matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

W.A.A.F. ((Oversea Postings)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether members of the W.A.A.F. have already been posted to France; and whether it is the policy of his Department to utilise the services of the W.A.A.F. in all liberated countries as the opportunity arises.

Captain Balfour: No members of the W.A.A.F. have yet been posted to France, but it is possible that some may go in the near future. The answer to the second part of the Question, is, Yes, so far as circumstances permit.

Religious Films

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the recent action taken by the Admiralty in making available to chaplains of the R.N. a supply of religious films, what facilities are available to the chaplains of the R.A.F. at home and abroad for the use of religious films.

Captain Balfour: A wide range of religious films is available to R.A.F. Chaplains at home and abroad. The sources of supply are always being reviewed to that the most suitable material may be obtained.

Mr. Sorensen: What is the nature of these films? Are they confined to Biblical subjects or do they cover a wider area?

Captain Balfour: I need notice of that Question.

Middle East Service (Leave)

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many days' leave is granted to men who return to this country after more than two years' service in the Middle East.

Captain Balfour: Men with over two years' but less than four years' continuous service overseas are eligible for 21 days' disembarkation leave on return to the United Kingdom. Those with four years' overseas service or more are entitled to 28 days. Disembarkation leave is subject to the exigencies of the service but where it is not possible for the full period to be taken immediately, the balance is allowed as soon as circumstances permit.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that there is great dissatisfaction because in some units some of the men get two weeks or three weeks, and some only one week? Can he see that this privilege is administered more equitably?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir, I am not aware that there is great dissatisfaction. We have had to post men to many units that have had to go to France. Some of the men have come recently from overseas and are in skilled trades. They have taken that decision loyally, appreciating the needs of the Service at the present time.

Mr. Burke: Is it not a fact that men who have served the same period, who are in this country and sometimes live in the same towns get varying periods of leave?

Captain Balfour: Two men from the same town may be in different trades, and our technical requirements for different trades vary according to the formations we have to send overseas.

Professor Savory: Are the men allowed to spend this leave in Ulster?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Retired Officers (Employment)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are taken, when middle-aged officers become redundant, to facilitate their services being used in some other employment connected with the Air Force or other employment of national importance.

Captain Balfour: R.A.F. officers are not considered redundant until all possibilities of finding employment for them in the Service have been fully explored. The responsibility for finding civil employment for such officers rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour

and National Service. My Department, however, is able to assist in various ways, and, in particular, in finding civil employment on work connected wth the Royal Air Force.

Educational Services (Committee)

Mr. Key: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has received the Report of the Committee he set up to inquire into the functions and organisation of the Royal Air Force Educational Services; and if he is now in a position to make a statement on the duties and conditions of employment of education officers in the R.A.F. or to recommend any changes.

Captain Balfour: The Committee have a large and important field to cover and I am advised that it will be some time before they are in a position to report.

Mr. Key: In view of the growing apprehension among these men, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman try to expedite the operations of this Committee?

Captain Balfour: The chairman and members of the Committee have a very wide field to cover, and a very difficult problem. They are doing their very best to cover it. When they have reported, my right hon. Friend must have adequate time to consider all the issues on which they are reporting.

Reconciliation Machinery

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is now prepared to introduce reconciliation machinery analogous to that under A.C.I. 437 /1944.

Captain Balfour: An Air Ministry Order was promulgated on 20th April last introducing similar reconciliation machinery to that outlined in the Army Council Instruction to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Officers' Dependants (Maintenance Liability)

Major Gates: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take the necessary steps to place officers under a similar statutory obligation, as at present applies to other ranks, to maintain their families.

Captain Balfour: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given


yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, to a Question by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). The position in the R.A.F. is the same as in the Army.

Parliamentary Franchise (Register)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary for Air whether, in view of the effectiveness of pictorial posters to encourage war savings, he will adopt a similar means of emphasising the need of airmen fulfilling their civic responsibility by registering immediately for future electoral purposes.

Captain Balfour: Many steps have already been taken to impress upon all airmen and airwomen the importance of fulfilling their responsibilities as Parliamentary electors and to inform them how to do so. I am, however, obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion which I will certainly consider.

Mr. Sorensen: When can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make some announcement on the adoption of what I suggest is a very effective means of drawing the attention of the men, to their civic duties?

Captain Balfour: I understand that, already, something on the lines of what the hon. Member has suggested is coming out in one of our next issues of one of the Royal Air Force publications.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Retired Officers (Employment)

Sir I. Albery: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps are taken, when middle-aged officers become redundant, to facilitate their further employment by the Admiralty or in some other work of national importance.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Under present conditions, if an officer should become redundant in an appointment, there is normally little difficulty in finding him alternative employment within the Naval service, provided that he continues to be medically fit for general service. The allocation of officers who cannot remain in the Service to work of national importance outside the Service is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour and National Service.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his answer applies to officers in the Marines; and is he aware that there is a case of a man having reached the rank of major-general in the Marines and having been put on the retired list at the age of 49?

Mr. Alexander: That may be so in certain cases, but the last part of my answer applies to them.

Parliamentary Franchise (Register)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) what is the approximate percentage of blank Parliamentary registration forms so far distributed to naval personnel that have been filled in and forwarded to the returning officer;
(2) what is the approximate number of persons engaged, either full time or part time, in recording the number of naval personnel who are registering as Parliamentary electors.

Mr. Alexander: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) on 14th June. I hope very shortly to be able to give the House the general impression which I then promised. It is not possible to state the number of persons engaged in assessing registration.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREEK SAILORS, CHATHAM (TRANSPORT)

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the three officers, about 50 non-commissioned officers and 40 sailors involved in the Greek naval incident at Chatham in April last are to be transferred to concentration camps in the Middle East; and whether they will be allowed to join the Resistance Movement in Greece as soon as it is practicable instead.

Mr. Alexander: I cannot accept the assertions made in my hon. Friend's Question. I assume that he refers to the transport of a party of Greek sailors from Chatham to the Eastern Mediterranean, which has been arranged at the request of the Greek Naval Authorities. This party comprises, in addition to reliefs and sick personnel, a number of men who on grounds of discipline the Greek Commander-in-Chief considers should not remain


at Chatham. The men are being transferred from Chatham Barracks to the Greek Naval Headquarters in the Middle East, where their cases will be examined. As the men concerned are still members of the Greek Navy, the second part of my hon. Friend's Question does not arise.

Mr. Parker: In view of the fact that about 87 per cent. of the Greek Forces in the Middle East are interned by our Forces surely it is time that something was done to set up a Greek Government under which they can really fight their enemies?

Mr. Alexander: Any question with regard to the Greek Government should be put to the Foreign Office. I would only point out that we might do a great deal of good by helping the Greeks to join in support of the Government set up by a very representative conference of all parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL LABOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why no Members of Parliament have been appointed to serve on the Colonial Labour Advisory Committee, seeing that it is desirable that Members of Parliament should be brought into closer contact with the consideration of problems concerned with the social and economic condition of our colonial fellow citizens.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): The non-official members of the Colonial Labour Advisory Committee were appointed after consultation with the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress. The Committee is therefore composed on the tripartite principle which is the basis of the International Labour Organisation. I see no present need to depart from that principle, particularly since the Committee has the power to co-opt members whenever it needs the advice of persons with special knowledge on a particular subject.

Mr. Riley: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that it is very desirable, particularly in connection with a Committee of this kind dealing with wide labour conditions, that Members of Parliament should be associated with the work of this Committee, and why is it that no Member of this House has been appointed?

Colonel Stanley: These Committees consist of experts on the particular subject. In trying to get experts in this subject I asked the advice of the T.U.C. who, I thought hon. Members opposite agreed had some experience of labour matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (FRANCHISE COMMISSION)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state what action the Government proposes to take on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution of British Guiana.

Colonel Stanley: The Franchise Commission has now reported and its report has been debated in the British Guiana Legislative Council, though I have not yet received any information as to the outcome of that debate. The recommendations are now receiving the Governor's consideration and I hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Dugdale: Will that report be available for Members in the Library?

Colonel Stanley: I hope to put copies of the report and recommendations together in the Library.

Miss Ward: Do the recommendations include women's suffrage in British Guiana?

Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Lady will put that Question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (FRANCHISE COMMITTEE)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state what action the Government proposes to take on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution of Trinidad.

Colonel Stanley: I hope to be in a position to make a statement about the report of the Trinidad Franchise Committee very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — INLAND WATER TRANSPORT

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will have a national survey made of all inland waterways, with a


view to steps being taken to bring them to the highest state of efficiency, and the abandonment of canals where the cost of restoration or the economic conditions do not warrant their continued use.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): As my answer is rather long I will, with your consent, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make it at the end of Questions.
Later—

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Government are closely examining the future organisation and development of the canals and other inland waterways of the country. The Government desire that means shall be found for making the maximum economic use of inland waterways, and that they shall have their proper place in the general system of inland transport. To this end, they have taken the opportunity afforded by their war-time control to draw upon the knowledge and experience available in the industry, and have consulted representatives of the canal undertakings and of canal carriers about the technical and other problems which must be considered in shaping future policy. Where necessary, they have also consulted, and will continue to consult, the planning authorities who are concerned.
The Government are at present giving special attention to certain engineering projects for the improvement of waterways from the seaports to the Midlands. My Noble Friend is confident that everyone concerned will recognise the, importance of co-operating in these inquiries, and will give him the fullest help. He would be very happy to receive any views on the future of inland water transport which traders and manufacturers may care to lay before him. I must, however, make it clear that the inquiries to which I have referred do not prejudge the Government's decisions on transport policy in general, and that they do not imply any commitment of the Government's financial expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what steps have been taken, or are to be taken, in order to bring

about the complete co-ordination of all transport on a basis of the highest state of efficiency; and the utilisation after the war of the vehicles, ships, landing craft, etc., manufactured for war purposes.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The operation of all the means of transport is at present fully co-ordinated by my Noble Friend. Peacetime conditions differ from those of war, and arrangements which are advantageous during a war may not necessarily be advantageous in time of peace. Nevertheless, the experience acquired since 1939 will be of great value in dealing with peace-time problems, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that it will not be forgotten. It will, of course, remain the Government's aim to secure the highest efficiency in every form of transport and to make such use as may be appropriate of equipment manufactured for the war.

Mr. Smith: In order to maintain this co-ordination and the high state of efficiency, which have been built up as a result of our war needs, will my hon. Friend's Department also bear in mind that this can only be maintained on the basis of social ownership?

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Profits (Disposal)

Mr. Doland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether it is proposed to regard the profit of, approximately, £129,000,000 made by the Government on the British railways, as being equivalent to the Excess Profits Tax payments of other industrial concerns; and will there be a post-war refund of 20 per cent. to enable the companies to cope with post-war replacement problems.

Mr. Noel-Baker: No, Sir.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is it not a fact that this surplus has only accrued as a result of excessive charges and that had there been any question of retaining the profit a costing system would have been imposed, as is the case in the producing Departments?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by fixing the railway rental agreement at a figure which does not provide funds sufficient to meet


the charge on all the fixed interest bearing securities he has created a classic example for other countries of how not to meet their external obligations, and does he not consider that it is a short-sighted policy which will react against the interests of this country?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Under the agreement the railways get remuneration considerably above anything they earned in peace time.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my hon. Friend say how the Government propose to dispose of the profit?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite another question.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. It is in the Question.

Mr. Speaker: My mistake; the hon. Member can ask it.

Mr. Shinwell: The Question asks whether the Government are prepared to make concessions to the railway companies and how they propose to dispose of the profit. Is it to be used for the purpose of railway development after the war? Have the Government made up their mind on that?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The agreement contains clauses, as my hon. Friend knows, about deferred maintenance and other things. The profit is paid into the Exchequer.

School Holidays (Special Trains)

Mr. Jewson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what arrangements have been made to cope with the traffic arising from the closing of schools for the summer holidays, at the end of July.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Schools have been asked to close for the summer holidays not later than 28th July. The railway companies have been authorised to provide special trains on any day up to and including that date, in cases where the number of the pupils justifies a train and where there is not room for them in the ordinary services.

Staffs (War Service)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he

has any plans in mind for demonstrating the admiration and gratitude of the British people to the railwaymen, including staffs and management, for their patriotism, courage, and service during the war period.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My Noble Friend has publicly and repeatedly expressed his high appreciation of the magnificent way in which all railwaymen, in every rank of their great service, have responded to the severe demands made upon them by the war, and I am sure that in so doing he was only voicing the general sentiment both of the country and of the House.

Sir T. Moore: As I have much more to say on this subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have another supplementary when notice has been given to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Lorry Journeys (Lingfield—Aldershot)

Mr. Touche: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the circumstances in which his Department ordered four eight-ton lorries to take 32 tons of potatoes from Lingfield to Aldershot on 10th July; is he aware that when the lorries arrived at Aldershot, after a delay of four hours, they were sent back unloaded to Lingfield; that on the following day, after several hours' delay, the lorries were then again sent with the same load to Aldershot; that the drivers were then told that this load was not wanted at Aldershot; and, finally, the potatoes were sent to Bagshot, for use as pig food.

Colonel Llewellin: I have been asked to reply. I have not yet been able to ascertain the full facts of this case. When I have done so, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Plums (Prices)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that prices fixed for this season's plum crop are causing grave concern in the growing areas, owing to the extensive frost damage sustained; how his figures were arrived at; why they were not agreed with growers' representa-


tives; and if he will reconsider them immediately.

Colonel Llewellin: I am aware that the prices fixed are less than those proposed by the growers. They were fixed in consultation between my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, in the light of growers' representations, of crop estimates made after the late frosts, and of the returns secured by growers in the previous two seasons. The answer to the last part of the Question must therefore be, No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Has there been any real consultation and negotiation with the National Farmers' Union in the matter of these prices? Was not this price merely a dictated price? Why is it necessary to break the hearts of the growers over and over again?

Colonel Llewellin: It was the National Farmers' Union with whom we consulted. Of course, my job is to fix a price which is reasonable to the producer and also fair to the consumer.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand that the National Farmers' Union agreed that this was a fair and just price?

Colonel Llewellin: No, I do not think I would say that.

Mr. De la Bére: In view of that, why does not my right hon. and gallant Friend review the whole matter again? It is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Dr. Morgan: Are there any capable doctors in the Minister's Department who are good heart-menders?

Olive Oil

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Food if he is taking steps to obtain olive oil from Italy.

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir; there is no surplus olive oil at present available from Italy.

Sir A. Knox: Cannot the Minister take the needs of the British householders into consideration, and bring some of this oil back, if possible?

Colonel Llewellin: I would, if I could get it.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that it is impossible to get olive oil from the chemists unless one has a special certificate from a doctor?

Colonel Llewellin: That is quite right. We have enough olive oil in this country to meet requirements under medical certificates, but, unfortunately, no more.

Mr. Petherick: In view of the fact that the olive trees in Italy and North Africa are still producing as much oil as before, cannot the right hon. Gentleman try to get some from North Africa?

Colonel Llewellin: Italy used to import oil for her own needs. It is a question of shipping. If we could send oil from other places to Italy, we might get more olive oil out, but I am afraid it is not possible at the moment.

Sir A. Knox: Could not the consumer have priority?

Hotel, North-West England (Charges)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to a complaint of a resident in Southern England who sought to send his wife and three young children to stay at a medium class hotel in North-West England and was asked to pay £3 3s. a day for board and lodging to sleep out, with a condition that at least payment for one month had to be made in advance.

Colonel Llewellin: I understand that the charges made by the hotel in question for guests sleeping out are one guinea a day for adults and half a guinea for children. These charges include four meals a day in the hotel, the cost of transport each morning from the place where the sleeping accommodation is provided and the cost of that accommodation. The proprietor of the hotel has no recollection of the inquiry to which my hon. Friend refers, and says that no deposit is asked for by the hotel.

Sir H. Williams: Did my right hon. Friend make any inquiries of the complainant, as well as of the hotel?

Colonel Llewellin: Well, we had the letter which gave us the facts from that side.

Rescue Workers (Rations)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider granting the same rations to Civil Defence canteens for the Rescue Service workers as are granted heavy industrial workers' canteens.

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, I have already arranged this in all canteens in London where a substantial proportion of the users are heavy rescue workers, and so long as present conditions continue.

Evacuation Areas

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Food what preparations are being made to provide an adequate amount of rationed and unrationed goods in evacuation areas.

Colonel Llewellin: I have already arranged for increased supplies both of rationed and unrationed foodstuffs to be available to meet the needs of the increased population in reception areas, but evacuees will greatly assist us if, as soon as they settle in their new billets, they will notify their change of address to the local food office and register with retailers.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Minister aware that a large amount of the tasty bits, that is to say those interesting foods which augment the normal dietaries, are not controlled by the Ministry in the direct sense? What is he doing to see about this augmentation in areas where there are now more mouths to feed?

Colonel Llewellin: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by tasty bits.

Mr. Walkden: I mean unrationed goods, which are undoubtedly to be seen at sea-side resorts but not in the ordinary industrial towns, like cooked hams, tripe, and pies and similar food which, in the normal inland towns, are not available.

Colonel Llewellin: Arrangements have been made so that manufactured foods such as pies and sausages will flow to those areas as well.

Hon. Members: Fly.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Information if, arising out of the United Nations Monetary Conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, which is considering how much each country shall subscribe to the £2,000,000,000 fund, he will arrange, through the B.B.C. Listener Research Department, a questionnaire which would enable him to gauge public opinion on these matters.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): No, Sir; no questionnaire on such a subject would yield results of any value. The purpose of the B.B.C. Listener Research Department is to study the reaction of the public to the B.B.C.'s programmes.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a pity to make such a mystery out of this Conference? Might we not know who nominated the delegates, in view of the vast importance of the subject to the majority of the people of this country? Why should there be this mystery?

Mr. Bracken: If my hon. Friend would speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would solve the mystery which is worrying him.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend inviting me to go and see the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (TOURISTS, ACCOMMODATION)

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department is contemplating the provision of facilities in Scotland, such as the erection of chalets and similar accommodation, to encourage tourist traffic in Scotland after the war.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Housing needs must have prior claim on the limited resources in building labour and materials which will be available immediately after the war, but the question of suitable accommodation for tourists—whether by new provision or by the use of existing hostels and camps—will be fully and sympathetically considered. The Scottish Council on Industry is appointing a Committee to review all the tourist and holiday resources and facilities in Scotland, with a view to the development of the tourist industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION)

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on Government policy in regard to the provision of emergency houses.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. The Government have reviewed the potential building capacity of


the country, and have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible, for some years, to build enough permanent houses to meet the urgent demands for separate homes. We shall therefore need, in addition, emergency factory-made houses. The Government have approved the model of such a house, prepared by my Noble Friend the Minister of Works, and are planning for large-scale production as soon as the necessary industrial capacity can be released from the war effort. The emergency houses will be purchased by the Government, and will be made available to local authorities to supplement their ordinary housing programmes. There will be full opportunity for discussion on the Bill which will be necessary to enable the Government to incur the expenditure involved.
In the meantime, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are opening discussions with local authorities on the preliminary arrangements to be made.

Sir I. Albery: Which Minister is actually responsible to this House for emergency houses in the after-war period?

Mr. Attlee: The production of the houses is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, but the general provision of housing is a matter for the local authorities, who come under the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Are urgent steps being taken to let the local authorities and the people in every part of the country see these houses, so that Members may be guided by their opinions?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. A question has been answered about that, and it has been made clear.

Mr. Edgar Granville: In view of the fact that certain details of this steel house are very unsatisfactory, even with the new prototype, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the new type of house before quantity production is undertaken?

Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member had listened to my reply, he would know that I said there would be full opportunity for discussion.

Sir Herbert Williams: What will be the name of this house (a) if it is popular and (b) if it is unpopular?

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Have the Government settled that there shall be only one type and size for this emergency house?

Mr. Attlee: I understand not; but perhaps the hon. Lady will put questions of detail to the Minister concerned.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Would it not obviate disappointment if this building were called by its proper name, a bungalow, and not a house?

Mrs. Tate: May we have an assurance that factory-produced houses, if they reach certain standards, will not be only temporary, and that it will be possible for private individuals to submit plans for permanent houses of a factory-produced type?

Oral Answers to Questions — EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Prime Minister the names of the persons who will comprise the Royal Commission on Equal Pay; and the terms of reference of the Commission.

Mr. Attlee: I hope to be in a position to make an announcement before the House rises for the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. Kendall: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to appoint a committee to examine, with the appropriate Government representatives, the anomalies which still exist in Service pay and allowances, this committee to be similar in constitution to the one which was set up to study Service pay and allowances.

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Mr. Kendall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some very grave anomalies still exist, especially that whereby the allowance for the child of a Service man who loses his life is reduced from 12s. 6d. to 11s., which is causing great distress to the widows concerned? Can arrangements be made for a deputation of hon. Members interested to be received to discuss these matters?

Mr. Attlee: I will refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 11th July, from which he will see that provision was made for the discussion of anomalies.

Mr. Tinker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the children's allowances that we want dealt with, because they are very unsatisfactory at present?

Mr.Kendall: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEXTILE INDUSTRY (BRITISH MISSION TO UNITED STATES)

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Production if he has now received the Report of the Textile Mission to the U.S.A.; and if he proposes to make it available to Members of Parliament.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I have now received the Report, which is being given careful consideration. The question of making the Report available to Members and to the public is being considered, in consultation with the other Ministers concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEEL PRODUCTION

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the Minister of Production whether he is satisfied that the production of steel in this country is adequate; and by what means is the production of steel regulated.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am satisfied that the quantity of steel produced in this country, together with that imported from the U.S.A., is adequae to meet essential war needs; and that, within the limits imposed by the availability of steel-making materials, inland transport, and other factors, full use is being made of our available capacity.

Mr. Fraser: Is there any justification for the reduction in the production of steel in this country just now? Great alarm is being expressed in. America at the reduction there, yet we are importing steel from America. Can we have some explanation?

Mr. Lyttelton: A number of questions are involved. There are certain

circumstances, which are being dealt with by an ad hoc Committee, and which are caused by changes in programme. The need for relieving the load of inland transport is another factor.

Mr. Shinwell: Why is it that in certain parts of the country men have been dismissed from steel works, on account of redundancy, yet we are importing large quantities of steel ingots from the United States?

Mr. Lyttelton: It is a very complicated question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question on the Paper.

Mr. Fraser: asked the Minister of Supply if he will consider the vital industrial needs of those development areas that are steel producers and discriminate in favour of them when allocating any future cut in production.

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Yes, Sir. All relevant considerations will be borne in mind in accordance with the policy stated in paragraph 24 of the White Paper on Employment policy.

Mr. Fraser: Having regard to the Government undertaking in paragraph 24 of the White Paper, is it not contradictory that even to-day we find steel works in West Scotland being closed down and workers transferred to other areas, or even to other industries?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir. I had a Question on this subject before from the hon. Gentleman. Work has not been transferred to other areas. Any cut which has taken place has been very small and uniformly applied, in all of what were the depressed areas, in the light of transport considerations and in view of the operational demands.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's great knowledge of the steel trade and the possibilities of its development, will he look at this matter afresh in order to prevent any of our steel trade being sacrificed in the interests of concerns in other countries?

Sir A. Duncan: The steel industry of this country was not sacrificed for anything but operational demands.

Mr. Shinwell: Could not the right hon. Gentleman speak about the future?

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Are we to regard this as an ominous sign of what will happen in the steel industry when peace comes?

Sir A. Duncan: I should very much hope not, Sir.

Mr. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the personnel of the steel industry in Scotland must have been reduced by 13 per cent. in the last six months, many of the workers having been transferred to other industries?

Sir A. Duncan: I have not exact figures of personnel. I have exact figures of production, and the reduction of production is trifling.

Oral Answers to Questions — OPERATIONS, NORMANDY

French Civilian Casualties

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any approximate estimate of the number of French civilians killed and injured during the present operations; what steps have been taken to reassure the French people that everything has been done to avoid needless loss of life; and whether effective air-raid precautions are now being provided.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The figures of casualties suffered by the French civilian population are as yet incomplete. In Caen about 2,000 were killed and 1,300 are in hospital. As regards air operations, prior warning was given to the inhabitants in military areas by dropping leaflets which indicated that bombing was to take place. The Air Forces were also instructed to exercise all possible care to avoid civilian casualties. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "Generally speaking, Yes, Sir."

Mr. Sorensen: Did not "The Times" state that the figure was 5,000 killed, and are the Minister's figures therefore correct in view of that statement? Will steps be taken to protect civilians in towns from German bombing?

Mr. Henderson: As regards the first part of the question, I can only assume that my answer is correct and that the hon. Member's information is incorrect. In regard to the second part, I think I indicated that, as far as possible, warning was given when air operations were to take place.

Professor Savory: Have these civilians been informed that Ulster is longing to welcome them?

British Correspondents (Facilities)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the facilities available to war correspondents and photographers with the British forces in Normandy compare unfavourably with those available to correspondents and photographers with the American forces; and if he will take steps to remedy this with a view to a balanced presentation of the allied invasion effort in the United States, in the British Commonwealth and Empire, and throughout the world.

Mr. A. Henderson: I understand that in the early stages of the operations in Normandy the British correspondents were at some disadvantage. I am glad to say that this has now been rectified, and American and British correspondents now enjoy equal facilites.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (AUSTRIAN NATIONALS)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider permitting Austrian nationals serving in His Majesty's Forces to wear the flash "Austria" on their shoulders, irrespective of the unit in which they may be employed.

Mr. A. Henderson: I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would cut across the existing system of badges for units of the British Army, and I am not aware of any exceptional circumstances which would justify a departure from this policy.

Sir T. Moore: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister himself declared that Austria would receive priority of consideration at the Peace Conference? Does he not think that this concession to our Austrian friends who are fighting with us would be very encouraging?

Mr. Henderson: I do not think that the question of Austria receiving recognition at the Peace Table depends upon the wearing of a flash.

Captain Alan Graham: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the leaders of the three chief United Nations made a special stipulation when discussing the future of


Austria, that the Austrians themselves must co-operate? In view of that fact, does he not think it is only just that those Austrians who are definitely trying to co-operate to secure their liberation should be able to show it to the world by some sort of badge?

Mr. Henderson: All I can say is that it is quite inconsistent with the practice of the British Army that individuals should receive flashes apart from their unit badges.

Commander Agnew: Is the Minister aware that it is the practice in the Royal Navy that such badges are worn by individuals, and that it is optional on their part to wear them or not? Can he not extend a similar concession to the Army?

Mr. Henderson: I do not think the position in the Navy is analogous to that in the Army. Sailors serve in the Royal Navy, whereas soldiers serve in particular units of the Army.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES (UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Chanceller of the Exchequer if, owing to the necessity for building up reserves for the post-war development of industry, he will discontinue using the power granted him under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922, which permits Surtax being charged on private limited companies on the ground that a reasonable part of the income has not been distributed.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. I must point out that the provisions of Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922, are directed to prevent the avoidance of Surtax in the case of controlled private companies, and the statutory powers under the Section are vested in the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. I would remind my hon. Friend that there is a specific provision in the Section that in determining whether a company has or has not distributed a reasonable part of its income the Commissioners shall have regard not only to the current requirements of the company's business but also to such other requirements as may be necessary or advisable for the maintenance and development of that business.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Financial Secretary aware of the difficulty which companies are experiencing in obtaining permits, even for repairs to plant, and, as that money cannot be expended for the purpose for which it is acquired at the present moment, will he give further consideration to his reply?

Mr. Assheton: I understand the point my hon. Friend is making and I shall be very glad to discuss it with him.

Sir Granville Gibson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how a private company is to know what is a reasonable figure, because there have been cases where an amount has been placed to reserve, which is regarded as a reasonable figure, and then the authorities have come down on top of these firms and made them pay Surtax on all their profits? What is a reasonable figure?

Mr. Assheton: If my hon. Friend will study the relevant Acts, as amended by the Act of 1928, he will see.

Mr. Higgs: In view of the difficulty of dealing with this matter by question and answer, I give notice that I will raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Sir Edward Grigg: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the indulgence of the House, I should like to ask for a correction in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate held on 6th July in this House on the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Bill, which contains a reflection on my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston), which it would never have entered my mind to make. The passage, as reported, reads as follows:
I was astonished to hear from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) that he has heard nothing of this subject from farmers. His correspondence with farmers must be very neglected, because I have heard a great deal from both farmers in his constituency, in which I reside, and farmers in my own constituency and other parts of the country."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1944; Vol. 401, C. 1388.]
That contains a reflection on the way in which my hon. and gallant Friend discharges his duties as a Member of Parliament, which, as I say, would never have occurred to me, and, as one of his con-


stituents, and with the highest opinion of the efficiency and conscientiousness with which he discharges his duties as representative of that constituency, I should like the correction made. The word I used was not "neglected," but "eclectic," by which I meant to suggest that his correspondence, or the expressions of opinion which reached him, on this subject were rather more uniform in character, than those reaching me. I am sorry the REPORT should have suggested that I, in any way, reflected upon him and I should be grateful if the correction could be made. May I add, Sir, that I make no complaint against the OFFICIAL REPORT, because the confusion is one which, under present conditions, could easily arise?

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I wish to thank my hon. Friend for the statement he has made.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Surely, my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the word "neglected" was not used by him? He used that word definitely.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill, without Amendment.

BILL REPORTED

LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL

"to make provision for temporary housing accommodation, and for purposes connected therewith"; presented by Mr. Willink; supported by Mr. T. Johnston, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. Westwood and Mr. Hicks; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 39].

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, to which I am asking the House to give a Second Reading today, is one which will, if it gains the approval of Parliament, form a temporary part of our housing legislation. It is a short, and, I hope, an uncontroversial Bill, but it is an important Bill for the period which is to follow the end of hostilities in Europe. I need hardly remind the House, that we must expect, for a substantial part of this period, still to be engaged in a major war. It is, none the less, a period in which we must do our utmost to repair the damages, the losses and the arrears of war in our own country, so far as we possibly can consistently with complete participation in the war against Japan. The difficulties of the situation make it all the more necessary that we should all apply our minds to dealing with it with the utmost efficiency, so as to make our maximum contribution towards meeting the very serious situation in which, as we all realise, our housing will inevitably be after these five years. I should like to assure the House, for my own part at any rate, that I am fully alive to the need for drive and energy in this housing field—a field, I believe, in which speedy action and efficiency of national government and local government will be as essential as, and perhaps more essential than, in any other sphere, once hostilities in Europe are over.
Before I sit down—and I will not delay the House long with this short Bill, —I hope to be able to satisfy the House that the proposals in the Bill form a logical and appropriate part in a series of measures, legislative and administrative, which are in hand and which, together, provide the best temporary programme for this period that we can plan at this stage. But before I do so, I am in duty bound to say a few words about each of the two amendments of the law which are proposed by the Bill. Of both the House has had long notice, for it was on 8th March last that I informed the House:
The Government have decided to introduce temporary legislation extending the present scope of housing subsidies so as to include dwellings built to meet general needs" …
and—this is the matter covered by Clause 2 of the Bill—that:
Parliament will be asked to empower the responsible Ministers, as after the last war, to confirm compulsory purchase orders for the acquisition of land for housing purposes without holding an inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1944; Vol. 397, c. 2060.]
I do not recollect that any criticism of either of those announcements was made in the Debate that followed shortly afterwards.
I come straight to the proposal in Clause I of the Bill. It deals with the first of those points—the extension of the scope and range, though not the amount at present, of Exchequer subsidy. May I first make clear the position of the law as it stands? The Act which deals with the position at the moment is the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, and under that Act, which was passed after great development in housing, both by private enterprise and local authorities, during the 1930's in particular, Exchequer subsidy is limited to special and quite narrow classes of houses built by local authorities. These classes are houses built to provide for slum clearance, for the abatement of overcrowding, and for agricultural workers. Under Clause 1 of the Bill the limitation to these three classes is removed, and Exchequer subsidy will be available in respect of any new house built by a local authority, between the date when this Bill becomes law and 1st October, 1947. I cannot, of course, refer to this as a two-year programme or a three-year programme. The House will observe that we are now three years and three months from that date, but we

cannot tell how much of that three years and three months will, in fact, be available for house-building. We may hope that it will be substantially more, at any rate, than two years.
This is a proposal for a general subsidy and I think I am right in saying that the House, between the wars, has not been in favour of general subsidy in principle. I am certainly not one of those who are attracted by a general subsidy but, in my submission to the House, we are, in present circumstances, driven, as a temporary measure, strictly limited by date, to provide for a subsidy of this kind in the period with which we are dealing, and that for two reasons. In the first place, we are bound to face the fact that we must anticipate that during this period—it may be a longer period—the level of building costs will be above the general price level, and while that is so—may it not continue long—it is obviously impossible to build houses of the character and type which we mean to build, at a cost which could be met by a rent within the means of those for whom these houses are intended. That is a situation which is inevitable at the present level of building costs, which are not only costs of labour but costs of materials, both home-produced and those which will come from abroad.
The second reason is equally valid. The subsidy was available under the Act of 1938 for houses built for special classes of persons and in relation to special classes of buildings. But in building in this short period after the end of the war in Europe, I feel that the House, as a whole, will think it right to have in mind a far wider range of tenancies for houses assisted by Exchequer subsidy than was contemplated in 1938. At that time, the House thought it right to concentrate subsidy on certain categories, but to-day it is a general house-shortage for which we have to provide. I need hardly remind the House that for almost five years practically no houses have been built and a large number of houses have been destroyed and, although the population may not have been increasing as rapidly as once it did, the number of family units has been increasing more rapidly in proportion to the population. The best estimate is that between 1939 and 1944 there has been in fact the addition of 250,000 families for whom we have to provide separate homes as early as possible. During the war families have


been living apart, broken up for one reason or another, often both husband and wife in different forms of National Service; hundreds of thousands of married couples have never yet had a home of their own; and many others have had to give up their homes or have lost them through force of circumstances or through enemy action. These classes, and particularly returning ex-Service men who cannot find separate homes of their own, must have first call on the houses to be built. Those two main features, the difference between the level of building costs and the general price level, and our duty—and I think the House will accept that it is our duty—to provide for that enormous range of our fellow-citizens to whom I have referred, are my justification for suggesting this temporary general subsidy.
But on Clause 1 there is one other point I ought to mention, because I feel that it may not leap to the eye. On the drafting of Clause 1, it may appear that the Exchequer subsidy is to remain exactly at the same level as that at which it has been since 1938, namely, £5 10s. per annum for 40 years. That, of course, is not the intention of the Government. This Bill is to extend the range and the scope of the subsidy but does not attempt to increase its amount to an appropriate figure. In fact, the Clause indicates the intention of the Government to propose a further amendment of the Housing law, because it provides that the Act of 1938 shall, as amended by any subsequent enactment, apply without the limitation to special classes of houses. It is, in fact, our intention to introduce legislation dealing with the appropriate amount of subsidy as soon as we feel that it is possible to form a reasonable view of what building costs will be during the period which I have described, running to 1st October, 1947, and when we can also form an opinion of what will be an appropriate level of rent. This is a matter on which I have had discussions with the associations of local authorities, and I was glad to find that they were in entire agreement with the view which I put before them, that this was not the time to attempt to fix a figure for subsidy. However, the fact that, as the law will stand if this Bill is accepted, there will be provision for a subsidy of £5 10s. 0d., need not alarm anybody. I should like to go further and make this quite clear. It is

our intention that, when the figure is fixed, it will apply retrospectively to all houses built under schemes submitted and approved by my Department after the passing of this Bill.

Sir Irving Albery: Am I right in understanding that the subsidy to which my right hon. and learned Friend refers, applies only to houses built by local authorities, and that no subsidy is available to those built by private enterprise?

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend is quite right. This Bill deals with houses to be built by local authorities but I shall refer later on to the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. McEntee: Would the Minister say what the position will be in the event of the local authorities building some houses when the subsidy is £5 10s. 0d. if, at a later date, the subsidy is raised to, say, £7 10s. 0d. and a payment has to be made for houses built under this Bill? Will it date from when the Act comes into operation or from the date fixed for the new subsidy, which may be much later?

Mr. Willink: It will be paid in respect of all houses built under schemes approved after the passing of this Bill. It will be retrospective in respect of all houses so built. It will not apply to one odd house or two, which may have been built during the war but not under this Bill; with respect to those, the subsidy will continue as it stands. There must be very few such cases, but I hope I have made it clear that the local authorities and I, myself, think that this is not the time to fix a figure either in this connection or in connection with other legislation which some hon. Members, I believe, desire, and which I have promised will be introduced.

Mr. Molson: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to clarify this matter? Is it not the case that under the Financial Provisions Act of 1938 the annual amount of the subsidy is fixed by order of the Minister each year?

Mr. Willink: I will see that my hon. Friend has an answer on that point because I should like to be absolutely accurate. I have the Act here, but I have


not examined that particular point. He shall have an answer when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the Debate.
I think I can pass now to Clause 2, which formulates the second amendment of our housing law. The proposal of this Clause is for a similar period, though not exactly the same period. It proposes that for a period of two years from the passing of the Bill, the Minister shall be entitled, after considering any objection, to confirm a Compulsory Purchase Order submitted to him by a housing authority without a public local inquiry. So far as the amount of compensation—the financial side—is concerned, the Clause has no effect at all. The normal procedure for fixing compensation remains exactly as it is—the question will go, as the law stands at present, to an official arbitrator if it cannot be settled by negotiation. There have been discussions, I know, in the House recently with regard to public local inquiries, but I should like to make it clear that, in this particular case, I am proposing to act exactly in accordance with preceaent—with this one exception, that in this year we are proposing to act rather more in time than on the last occasion, because it was not until 1919 that a similar liberty was given, in that case to the Local Government Board, to confirm Compulsory Purchase Orders without a public inquiry. That provision was made in the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1919, and it was a power, as here, to dispense at discretion with a public local inquiry during a period of two years.
I need not emphasise the vital importance of seeing that there is no hold-up by reason of delays in the acquisition of land. I prefer the holding of public local inquiries in such matters as this, but I am satisfied that what was necessary in 1919 is necessary again to-day. We cannot tell with what urgency this may come upon us. The acquisition of land is a very complicated matter. It will, of course, arise on proposals made by local authorities and investigated by my officers. If objections are raised to the acquisition of the land, apart from the question of the price—which, as I have said, does not come into the matter at all—the question in every case will be whether the public interest requires that this land shall be available as desired by the local authority. This relaxation of the procedure will, I

am advised, save as much as three to four months in disputed cases. That is a moderate statement. Although I want any increase in powers of this kind to be as limited as possible, I feel that we cannot do without further emergency powers with regard to land, and I would ask the House to accept the view that what was right after the last war will be right again to-day, when, probably, our need for speedy action—particularly as we shall be embarking on this work during a period of active war—are even greater than they were on that occasion.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask a question? I take it then that the rights of private owners whose property is acquired will remain the same in the eyes of the law, in other words that the small property owner will have every right to present his case to the courts and have that case examined?

Mr. Willink: This is a matter of dealing with objections to Compulsory Purchase Orders which come before the Ministry, and the procedure for the acquisition of land is exactly as it was before. The only question is whether the House will agree that, as in 1919, so in 1944 or 1945, it should not be necessary for a public local inquiry to be held. It will be necessary for the Minister to consider any objection of principle that any individual may raise—the Clause does not deal with questions of amount-whether the public interest, in the particular case, outweighs his private interest with regard to the particular piece of land.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman anticipate that there will be much land required? I understood that many of the local authorities already have land which will be adequate for this short period.

Mr. Willink: The difficuty is that, over the country as a whole, it is uneven. I shall tell the House the amount of land the local authorities have in hand at present. There are certain areas where there will be quite a substantial amount necessary when the allocation of housing programmes is made. It is not on a vast scale.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Can the land owner put his point of view to anyone?

Mr. Willink: Those who can make objection include the owners, lessees and occupiers.

Mr. George Griffiths: They will not be behind in putting their point of view.

Commander Agnew: Would it be possible, under Clause 2, for a local authority to buy up very large blocks of land that it could not possibly build on within the two years prescribed in the Clause?

Mr. Willink: The land would have to be acquired for housing purposes. However, it is very bad business to limit local authorities in the acquisition of land to the very narrow area required for their two-year programme alone. It might well be right to let them have a larger area in the interests of good planning.

Mr. McEntee: Can the Minister say whether on this Clause, as on Clause 1, he consulted the local authorities and whether they are satisfied that two years will be a reasonable period?

Mr. Willink: So far as I remember, the consultations with the local authorities did not deal with this particular proposal; but I desire to emphasise that this is a Bill of temporary provisions, and to make such provisions for two years will, in my view, give ample time for Parliament to consider what should be the procedure for the acquisition of land after the two years have elapsed. What I think I am right in presenting to the House is a general scheme for this emergency period, this period of two to three years, a co-ordinated and correlated scheme to enable us to do all we can during that time.
I think I can now pass to what I promised to do, that is, to put before the House a picture of how these proposals, which appear small and to have been presented in a somewhat piecemeal fashion, are related to the housing programme for this period as a whole. The Government's programme for this period can be defined in this way: It is to build as many new houses, to create as many new homes, as we possibly can. To that end we propose to use four methods, speaking broadly. In the first place I think the House will agree that a very high priority must be given to the rebuilding of houses which have been

destroyed by the enemy and which attract a cost-of-works payment under the War Damage Act. The number of these, before the present attacks began last month, was approximately 40,000, of which about one quarter, about 10,000, were houses belonging to local authorities. Those figures relate to the whole country, but, of course, the number is now increasing daily. That is the first heading under which we think that the building of houses in this period should begin.
In the second place come houses built by local authorities, which are the subject of to-day's Bill. I should make it clear that it is our expectation that much the greater part of permanent house-building during this time will be undertaken by local authorities. The period I refer to is up to 1st October, 1947, or two years after the passing of this Measure. It is what I may call the transition period. In this we are asking the local authorities to undertake a very heavy task and a very heavy responsibility. The average number of houses built each year by local authorities during the five years before the war was approximately 65,000, and the House will see in a moment that we are now asking the local authorities to undertake a greater task than that. Though they will have great difficulties at the outset in making their plans in advance of building, difficulties in the matter of technical and administrative staff and in the creation of an organisation to rebuild, from what I have seen of the local authorities I am quite sure that they are willing, indeed that they are anxious, to tackle this work.
In the third place come houses built by private enterprise. In that short phrase I include all houses built by anybody not a local authority—housing associations, people building houses for themselves, people building houses for their employees, and so on.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman also include the speculative builder?

Mr. Willink: Yes, most certainly. I promised the House last Thursday that legislation dealing with that would be introduced at a later date. That legislation should properly wait, I think the House will agree, until I have had an opportunity of discussing this project with the local authorities because, as I indicated in my


answer last week, they will be closely concerned with the administration of the scheme during this period.

Mr. G. Griffiths: It has not yet been discussed with the local authorities?

Mr. Willink: Not as yet. Those are the three methods relating to permanent houses. Next I should give some indication of the numbers we have in mind. I cannot give a firm figure in the circumstances of to-day. The building industry will restart as a mere shadow of its former self and building it up will be a gradual process. The rate at which the industry builds itself up must depend upon the course of the war.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. His back has been towards me the whole time.

Mr. Willink: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that the rate at which the building industry builds itself up must depend upon the course of the war, must depend upon the rate at which the men can return. Also, the industry will not be able to devote itself wholly to the building of new houses. There will be other fields of new building and a very large programme of deferred repairs and deferred maintenance. But the Government have looked as carefully as they can at the possibilities, and I still hold to the estimate that I made in March that the maximum output of new houses of permanent construction that we can hope to get in the first year after the end of hostilities is 100,000 built or building—that is by the three methods I have described—and including Scotland, and a further 200,000 in the second year. Of course, if our fore cast turns out to have been pessimistic we shall do our best to see that more are built, but it would be wrong of me to mislead the House or the country by putting forward large figures which, on the information we have, we do not believe could be realised. I should remind the House that the number of houses built in the first year after the last war was 715, and in the second year there were less than 30,000, and it was not until the end of the fifth year that we reached the figure of 300,000 which I hope we shall have reached in two years; and that was during a time when we were not at war.
The fourth method is by providing houses of temporary type. The House

has heard the Deputy Prime Minister's statement this morning and on that I hope to have discussions with the local authorities at a very early date. I shall discuss with them our proposals with regard to private enterprise building and aso the details of the arrangements for housing by means of temporary construction.

Mr. Silkin: Will the House have a chance of discussing it?

Mr. Willink: The Deputy Prime Minister clearly stated that such an opportunity would be available to the House when legislation is introduced dealing with the matter.
On the question of the land, a great deal of preparatory work has been done by the local authorities. They own sites for 200,000 houses in England and Wales, though the distribution of them is uneven at present. Many Members are familiar with, and have put Questions about, the policy with regard to developing these sites during the war; and with regard to the type of houses to be built and included in their plans, the most valuable report of the Dudley Committee on the Design of Dwellings has been sent to the local authorities—it has been available to hon. Members for some days. Local authorities have also been informed that a Housing Manual based on the report of the Dudley Committee will be issued to them very shortly.
This is the general picture, within which, in my submission, this Bill fills an essential place, and I ask for a Second Reading for it in order that the local authorities may go ahead stimulated by the knowledge that this House is prepared to enable them and encourage them in the work to which they are setting their hands.

Mr. Dobbie: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the statement made by the Minister in presenting this Bill, and while, speaking generally, one can congratulate him upon the Bill, on the other hand, unless he is prepared to go a little further than he has gone, I am afraid this Bill will create a good deal of disillusionment and disappointment in the hearts of thousands upon thousands of working men and women. The Minister informed us, as is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum


upon the Bill, that in the first year after the cessation of hostilities we may expect to provide 100,000 houses and in the second year something like 250,000. I take it that will be when demobilisation is well in operation and building trade operatives have returned to the industry. In those circumstances the Government expect in those years to turn out the number of houses I have mentioned. All I would say in regard to that, is that it is not good enough, and that the Government must do something better.
I was rather disappointed that the Minister did not say something more in regard to the steps the Government were to take to provide the houses which are referred to in this Bill. They are already extending the subsidy to houses other than those for which the subsidy is paid now. At the moment, the subsidy applies only to houses built to deal with slum clearances and over-crowding. While we welcome that extension, and welcome the principles contained in Clause 2, we are rather disturbed and disappointed that the Government have not told us of the steps they intend to take to make sure that the houses will be built. As the Minister has said, there is a tremendous job in front of all of us. There are five years' arrears in regard to building, and we have to do repairs, as well as putting right the devastation caused by attacks from the air. The figures that the Minister has given us make one wonder why the Government have not said something more explicit on the steps they intend to take to help the local authorities to meet the difficulties confronting them. Five or six things are necessary—men, money, material, land and the determination of the local authorities to give effect to the Bill, and the desire of the Government to help them. I think four of these things we can take as accepted, including the intention of the Government and the determination of the local authorities. The land is there, and we are confident that the money will be there also. The thing that disturbs me, however, is the fact that the Minister has said nothing about men and material. Even with the land, with the money, and with the best intentions in the world both of the Government and of the local authorities, without the men and material the houses cannot be produced. At the moment there are not the men in the building industry

to deal with the situation on the lines laid down by the Minister.
I hope whoever replies for the Government will inform us whether the local authorities are to have priority for material and men, whether the Government are going to set out with the intention of producing more material for building houses, and whether men are to be released from other industries and transferred to the building trades. One learns that people are being released from industries here and there throughout the country, and I would be glad if the Minister would say, when he replies, whether those workers are to be transferred to the building industry or to the industries which are providing the material for building houses. I wonder whether any arrangements are being made for dilutees to be introduced into the industry and whether consultations on those lines have taken place between the building trade unions. I would like the observations of the Minister on these points when he replies and I would also like him to tell us whether it is the desire of the Government to provide the man-power. After all, the provision of man-power is the thing that is necessary. It is no use putting up grand schemes before the people. The people will read in the newspapers what is said here. They will not read HANSARD, nor will they study all the Minister's qualifications of the proposals as to the production of houses. To produce a scheme on paper and not to provide the material to give effect to that scheme is, in my opinion, playing fast and loose with the trusting people of this country.
As the Minister has said, we have to realise that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this county—many of them serving in His Majesty's Forces—who up to the moment have never had a home of their own. I would ask the Government to tackle this position from the standpoint of man-power and to examine whether it is not possible to get some men transferred from His Majesty's Forces who belong to the building trade.

Mr. Molson: Now?

Mr. Dobbie: If the hon. Member listens he will hear what I was going to say. Yes, right now. We have heard and read many speeches and statements from people who inform us that the war


is going to be over, as far as Europe is concerned, this year. I do not know whether it will or not, but some authorities are giving that indication throughout the country at the moment. If that is so, I believe the time has arrived when we could look at the situation from that standpoint and inquire whether or not men from the building trade in the Forces could be released to return to this country and start building houses for the people. Make no mistake about it, we cannot give the men in the Forces the same answer as we gave them after the last war. The people will not stand for it. I warn the Government in regard to that. There is another way whereby we might be able to get men back into the building industry. I made reference to dilutees. I would also refer to the question of general construction and building in the country and whether or not we have nearly come to the end of much of the construction work that the Army has needed, the construction of aerodromes, and similar places. Could men of the building trades be transferred from such work to the construction of houses of the kind referred to in the Bill? When the Minister replies, I would be glad if he would make some reference to that point and tell us exactly where we stand in regard to man-power. As I have said, it is no use having a Bill of this sort, which will shortly become an Act, having the land and having the money unless we have the men and material to give effect to it, It is time we told the people exactly what the Government intend to do in regard to giving real effect to the Bill.
As to Clause 2, which deals with compulsory purchase and public inquiry, I think everyone will note with satisfaction the provision in that Clause, and I hope that in any future Acts dealing with the production of houses for the people of this country that provision will go a good deal further. I hope, however, that the Minister who will be in office at the particular time, when public inquiries are refused, will give the matter his close attention. When the Minister replies I hope he will undertake to deal with cases in which money and effort have been spent in laying out and providing grounds for recreation and sport, and things like that. I hope that great care will be taken in the retention of these facilities and that special attention will be paid to their retention by the Minister when con-

sidering objections to compulsory purchasing power. With those remarks—I would not call them bjections—relative to the Bill, I conclude by saying that my hon. Friends and I are prepared to give it our blessing to-day.

Mrs. Tate: I think that every one in the House will agree that the subject of housing is one which to-day, outside the immediate prosecution of the war, is of greater interest to most of us than, perhaps, any other in the country. It cannot possibly be denied that every hour we live, this question is becoming of more vital importance to the people of this country. Therefore, I very much welcome, as I am sure all hon. Members do, the introduction of this Bill to-day as an earnest of the Government's intention to deal with the problem at the earliest possible moment. I also welcome the Minister's statement that the amount of the subsidy is not to be determined at present. In spite of the immense rise in building costs, I think it will be possible to find new methods which will also reduce expense in the future. For instance, the cost of houses could be reduced by the standardisation of fittings and by the use of more modern materials and methods of construction. The Minister is, of course, aware that the subsidy was originally meant only for houses which were built to replace other houses. When we passed the Act in 1936, we all had very high hopes of it, but when, in 1938, it was applied to the country districts, many of us felt that a large number of houses were being destroyed, which could, in fact, have been repaired and made perfectly habitable.
On 31st May, 1938, I tried to bring in a Private Member's Bill—the Housing (Rural Cottages Protection) Bill—in order to safeguard some of these houses. In the county of Somerset we went further than that. We set up a committee on which were doctors, architects, builders, clergy and social workers to inquire into the houses which had been condemned in order to enable the local authorities to get the subsidy with which to build new houses and to inspect them. We did not attempt to save any houses over which we thought there could be argument as to whether or not they ought to go. We only tried to save houses which we felt sure could be made habitable and reasonably comfortable for the owner,


and which we really believed it was quite inexcusable to destroy. We were not successful in saving one single house. At that time it was useless to appeal to the Minister as I do not think it was possible for him to go behind his own Act. A great many of the houses condemned in 1938 and scheduled for demolition were never actually demolished because of the outbreak of hostilities and their owners are still living in them. I hear that it is improbable that they have been modernised in the interval, but I would very sincerely ask the Minister to consider extending this subsidy and granting it for the repair of houses which were condemned in 1938, but are still in existence to-day, where, after another inspection, such repairs are considered practicable.
There is urgent need for reinspection of some of those houses. I would like to tell the Minister of one case in my own constituency which I thought very tragic. I inspected one house—a pink-wash cottage on a hillside in Somerset in extraordinarily beautiful surroundings. The man and his wife who lived there were happy and had reared eight children in that cottage. It was their own home, and to them, after their own family, it mattered more than, perhaps, anything else in the world. The woman said to me: "Look at my family. My grandmother lived here till she was 84. My children are healthy, and happy and strong. This home is the thing we care for and love, and now it is to be torn away from us. If a war comes, the first thing the country will ask of me is my son, and perhaps my second son, and I now ask of the country that it should not take away from me my home which could be made perfectly sound." I inspected the cottage and agreed with her that it could be made perfectly sound. Her thoughts, her fears, unfortunately, were justified. The war did come. We have taken from her not only her eldest son and her second son, but her two daughters who came after them. That house is typical of a very considerable number of houses—where the properties could be made substantially sound, although, perhaps they are not absolutely ideal—perhaps there is not a damp course, perhaps the height of the rooms is not exactly seven feet. I ask that such houses which are reasonably habitable and in which people can be happy,

should not be pulled down until we have a more adequate number of houses than we have to-day.
I beg further that there should be some revision of the better houses in these districts, and that where they are repairable a subsidy should be granted for their repair as well as for the building of new houses. All this may not be within the recollection of the Minister, who was not in this House at the time, but I assure him that houses were condemned under that Act which would not have been condemned, had it not been for the fact that it was impossible to get a subsidy for a new house until an old house was condemned. I also beg the Minister to look into the question of the overhaul, revision, modernisation, and, if possible, unification of our model bylaws. I am quite certain that with the many modern methods of building which will be available to us after the war our old by-laws will not be applicable. At present, our model by-laws are in a very chaotic condition. They need overhaul, and it would be very helpful to local authorities, before they embark on the vast programme which is before them, to have more guidance and a better lead as to the best by-laws of the country.
I hope that this building will start at the earliest possible moment. I welcome the Minister's statement that he could not promise to build more than 100,000 houses after the war, for this reason: I would rather see a low number promised and see that number built, than have the promise of a vast number which could not be built. This problem of housing is causing such appalling suffering to our people at the present time that anyone who dared to make a promise on the question of housing, which could not be completely fulfilled, would be committing a crime. I know that to-day in London, houses which matter much to the people who live in them are being destroyed, but in some parts of the country, where there has not been the same physical destruction through enemy action, houses are often so overcrowded and so neglected that they have gravely deteriorated in condition, and are now far from desirable homes. When we give a subsidy for the repair of houses damaged by enemy action, would it not be possible to give a subsidy for the repair of houses which have fallen into disrepair, partly because it has been


impossible to repair them during the war and partly because they have deteriorated more than they would have done in a normal five-year period, owing to the way in which they have had to be used? I realise that many other Members wish to speak and I will not detain the House further, except to say that I would be grateful for an assurance that the Minister would look into these questions and see whether the subsidy could be extended to cover one or other of the classes of houses to which I have tried to draw his attention.

Miss Lloyd George: I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) that a great deal could be done in the way of repairing houses, in order to make up the deficiency, and that a great deal has been done in country districts under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. But I most earnestly beg the Minister not to accept the proposal that a revision should be made of condemned houses, or houses which are considered unsuitable, and that a subsidy should be given for houses of that character, because there is great danger that by so doing the whole standard of housing would be reduced. The Minister has said that this is a non-controversial Bill. So it is, but I think it is the method of approach to the whole of this housing problem, with which this Bill seeks to deal in part, which is the matter of controversy. This Bill is only one more example of housing legislation by instalments, which a great many of us deeply deplore. We have one Bill for the blitzed areas, another Bill for new housing in the emergency period, one kind of procedure for compulsory purchase of land in one Bill and another kind of procedure in this Bill—personally, I prefer the method of compulsory purchase as outlined in this Bill. That is what the Government call planning.
The Government have an immense task even if they fulfil their programme of 100,000 houses in the first year after the war and 200,000 in the second year. How does the Minister propose to deal with this problem? Does he intend to simplify procedure? I think all hon. Members will agree that the proposal for the compulsory purchase of land is admirable. The Minister is no longer bound to hold a public inquiry. He said that things have been held up for three or four

months by reason of this and we all applaud the first Clause in this Bill. Now that the Minister is thinking about speeding up things, I would ask him to cut out the multiplicity of Departments which have to be consulted before the foundations of a single house can be laid. I understand that no fewer than 14 Departments, bodies and persons have to be consulted before war agricultural cottages can be built. So I hope the Minister will speed up that procedure as well as other procedure. The Minister has spoken of the great need for general housing, which has been greatly aggravated by the war. He is to extend the subsidy for new housing, and that will be welcomed by Members in all parts of the House. He also said that it would be difficult to build houses at rents which those who occupied them could afford to pay. What is to be the value of this subsidy, elastic though it is, after the war, when prices will be high unless he takes stringent measures to bring them down? I welcome the fact that the subsidy is to be elastic, and that he will be able to enlarge it, but many must remember what happened after the last war, when the whole thing broke down, because the subsidy soared too high and prices were not brought down. The rise in building costs is, in some cases, about 100 per cent. over pre-war costs, and one of the very disquieting features about the situation is that these building costs have risen very much higher, in proportion, than the cost of living. It was possible, before the war, for local authorities to build a good house for about £335, and a better type of house for £400 or £450. The agricultural cottages which have been recently built, and which are our only measure of cost comparison at the moment, cost as much as £900, I understand, or even £1,000.
What will be the economic rent of houses built at those figures after the war? What will be the subsidy that will have to be provided? Certainly, the 1938 Act subsidy will not come within miles of what is needed. This Bill will stand or fall, therefore, on whether the Government intend to take measures to control prices. The Dudley Committee say in their report:
We are convinced that unless this is done—
that is, bringing prices down—


the Government programme of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 houses will never be completed. We therefore assume that whatever action may be necessary to bring this about will be taken, and that building costs will eventually be stabilised about 30 per cent. above those prevailing before the war.
Are these assumptions well founded? Do the Government intend to take any action? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something about it when she replies to the Debate. After all, during the war the Government have adopted measures for cheap mass production of essential commodities. Why should they not continue that policy in this all-essential matter of building houses for the people? They have warned us that it will be essential to maintain certain controls after the war. Why should there not be direction and control of essential materials for rebuilding? If any Member can assure us that industry will come forward with reasonable prices, there will be no need for control, but if we mean to have the houses we need I believe that very stringent measures will be absolutely necessary.
I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Frome that it will be absolutely esential to have standardisation of certain parts, such as castings, in connection with which there was a bottle neck after the last war. This matter might be tackled now, because we have a great deal of experience of it. The Ministry of Works sent out to the United States a mission of experts, of which the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) was one, to report on methods of building in that country. They came back with a very interesting Report in which they pointed out how low costs can be achieved and how efficiency and speed can be increased. Many of the most important of these things have been achieved by simplification of design and standardisation of parts. I do not wish to detain the House any longer as there are others who want to speak, except to say that if we are to have these houses after the war we must have new methods, new materials and an entirely new approach to the problem. Above all, we must have a plan, If this Bill is to be of any value at all the measures which I have outlined will have to be taken.

Mr. Molson: I listened with great interest to the Minister's

statement and I think we shall all welcome the Bill as far as it goes. It is a very modest one but my right hon. and learned Friend made it plain that it is intended to deal only with one single problem, and he has promised other legislation to follow. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) criticised the Minister for not being prepared to hold out any expectation that more than 100,000 houses would be built in the first year after the war, and 200,000 in the second.

Mr. Dobbie: I said 250,000.

Mr. Molson: I think the Minister said 200,000 and I thought the hon. Member was quoting the Minister.

Mr. Dobbie: I was quoting the Financial Memorandum.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member went on to suggest that there was such a prospect of the war being brought to a successful conclusion soon, that the time might already have come when it would be permissible to bring men back from the Army to resume the building of houses. I hope the House and the country will not begin to relax in the war effort before the war has been won. It seems to me that the surest way of failing to win the war, would be to begin to assume now that it is possible to divert men and energy from the war to the problems of reconstruction. I hope also that no responsible Member of the House will hold out extravagant expectations, that it will be possible in the early days after the war, to start building houses in very large numbers. I hope that labour and material will first be made available for carrying out the long over-due repairs of existing houses. Many of those houses at present, owing to the wear and tear of the war, are deteriorating until they are almost becoming slums, and it would be folly to allow the houses that exist to fall into a bad state of disrepair while at the same time a large number of new houses are being undertaken.

Mr. McEntee: Is the hon. Member not aware that the Ministry is to-day bringing men out of the Services and that they are working in large numbers?

Mr. Molson: That is an entirely different matter. The same thing happened in 1940. We sent plasterers and tilers to deal with the problem of repairs. That is one thing. It is a different matter to begin calling men back from the Army to


start the construction of new houses, which the Government have said they are only prepared to undertake when the war has been won.
I think there will be very little opposition to the proposal to suspend for the time being the local public inquiry. I am sure we can rely upon the Minister to give fair and impartial consideration to representations made to him by those affected by these compulsory Orders, but I should like to utter one word of warning. While I think the House will be prepared to abandon one of the safeguards to the rights of the individual, in view of the overpowering national emergency at the end of the war, I think the House will some day want to resume the old procedure and that people whose property is taken from them may be assured that their representations will be fairly and impartially met in a public inquiry.
Clause I provides for the continuance of the existing subsidy and I agree with the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) that the pre-war subsidy obviously will not be sufficient to deal with the problem in the coming months. That was emphasised in the report to which both she and I were signatories—the report of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee. I am very glad that she emphasised the vital importance of bringing down the cost of housing. She quoted from the Dudley Committee's Report. I should like to quote from our report upon this same subject, because I think it is a good thing that two of the Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee should have put this thought in very plain and emphatic words. We said:
It is obvious to anyone conscious of the limitations of the national resources that it is not possible to carry out a long term housing programme of 4,000,000 houses, as announced by the Minister of Health, at the present level of building costs.
We did not say that it was because it was going to cost too much money. We said it would involve too great an expenditure of the national resources. I hope we may hear something from the Parliamentary Secretary of what is being done by her Department, and I hope also that she is in consultation with the Ministry of Works on the subject, in order that the cost of building may be brought down to a level at which it will be possible to hope for the

building programme announced by the Government to be effectively undertaken.
I was interested in the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) with regard to the reconditioning of houses that had been condemned. I see some difficulty about reconsidering the condemnation of old houses which has once gone through to its final legal conclusion, but I am sure she was on a very important practical point when she emphasised how important it will be, in the difficult years immediately ahead, when we are going to be short of houses whatever is done, that the reconditioning of houses which may be made high and healthy should enjoy a very high priority. A comparatively small percentage of materials might result in houses being made perfectly healthy and satisfactory. That is why I am rather surprised that no steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendation of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee on this whole matter of the reconditioning of houses. The limit of financial expenditure upon these houses is still that which applied before the war— before the increase in the cost of building—and it is one of the most important recommendations of the Committee, that the provisions of the Rural Workers Housing Acts should be brought into line with the new level of costs.
On the matter of the general subsidy, I interrupted the Minister to suggest that, he had power, by Order, to vary the subsidy paid under existing housing legislation. I found that I was partly right and partly wrong. He has power under the existing legislation to reduce a subsidy but he has no power to increase it. Obviously, in the conditions as they are at present what will be needed is an increase, and not a decrease, in the subsidy. So I welcome the Bill for what it is worth. I think Clause 2 will go some distance to expedite the procedure, and Clause 1 will, at any rate, enable the existing pre-war subsidy to be continued. But I am sorry that the Minister should be dealing with this urgent problem in such a piecemeal manner. The Rural Housing Sub-Committee only attempted to deal with housing in the country. The Report was published same months ago and I should have thought that, by this stage of the Session, we might have expected a small Bill dealing with the very modest recommendations that we made in order that rural authorities might get on with the work.


Similarly in the case of housing in the towns. I welcome the Bill for what it is, an instalment upon the road, but I hope my right hon. Friend will see to it that before very long, we have legislation which is more likely to show some concrete result than this very slender Bill.

Mr. Silkin: The Bill has not, so far, been received with tremendous enthusiasm but I should like to associate myself straight away with the remarks of the hon. Members for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd-George) that it lacks comprehensiveness. The Minister said it was a temporary Bill and an emergency Measure. That is the best we can say for it. That it is temporary there can be no doubt. That it deals with an emergency I would not for a moment admit. It depends on what one regards as the emergency. Apparently the Minister regarded the emergency as the provision of 300,000 houses, but in an earlier Debate, he, himself, said that to provide every family with a home, good or bad—not to replace existing bad ones but merely to provide a roof for every family in the country—you would need 1,000,000 houses, and that figure was not challenged here or elsewhere. I should have said it was too small, but for the purpose of this discussion I accept the figure of 1,000,000 as being the minimum needed to provide a home for every family in the country. The emergency that we have to deal with is the provision of those 1,000,000 houses.
I should like to examine the Bill from that standpoint. Clause 1 deals with the matter of the subsidy. The hon. Member for Anglesey has referred to the fact that the cost of building will be admittedly higher than it should be after the war. She said 100 per cent., but I want to assume that the cost of building will be 60 per cent above pre-war. I have taken the trouble to go into the figures. If one takes the normal type of house provided by the London County Council, and assumes that the cost of land will be —250 an acre, the total cost of the house after the war, on the basis of a 60 per cent increase, will be £920. Assuming a net rent of 10s. a week plus rates, the annual deficiency will be £34 12s. The contribution from, the Exchequer under this Bill will be —5 10s., leaving the local

authorities to bear a deficiency of £29 2s. a year per dwelling for 40 years. I take one more example of what the high cost of building will mean. In London, and I believe in most of the large towns, it will be necessary to build flats to a certain extent. Assuming that we build flats of three, four and five storeys—in the case of five storeys with lifts—and assuming the cost of land at £12,000 an acre, which is high outside London, but within the average figure for London, the annual deficiency, assuming a rent of 10s. plus rates, will be £56 17s. The Exchequer contribution, which is a graduated one in the case of expensive land, will be £56 17s. leaving an annual deficiency to be borne by the local authorities of £39 17s. per flat.
That is a tremendous figure. At some time Housing Bill No. 2 will be introduced to put right the question of subsidy. The Minister did not say that, but I realise his difficuty if he wants to be meticulous about the cost of building under the exact subsidy to be provided. In the meantime, the local authorities have to bear this burden themselves. They have to carry the baby. I submit that to ask local authorities to bear this enormous subsidy, leaving the Exchequer to pay relatively small sums, is hampering the building of houses purely on financial grounds. I recognise that the Minister has had conversations with local authorities, and that, apparently, they are not taking this point, but it was clearly demonstrated as the feeling of the House a week ago, when there was complaint that discussions had not taken place with the local authorities, that this House reserves the right to have the last word. I am not speaking here for the local authorities. I feel that it is an unjust arrangement that the local authorities should bear the whole burden for an indefinite period, leaving the Exchequer to bear a fixed burden. I would have liked to have put down an Amendment so that this matter could have been thrashed out in the House. Unfortunately, the Financial Resolution will prevent such an Amendment being discussed. There is an unfortunate tendency growing up in the House to put down Financial Resolutions in such a way as to make even the discussion of Amendments impossible. If I were to put down an Amendment, say, that the Exchequer should contribute £15 a year


per dwelling on account generally and have a settlement later on, it would be out of Order. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether she cannot put down a revised and more elastic Financial Resolution so that this matter can be thrashed out when the Committee stage is taken.
Having talked about these enormous Subsidies, I fully agree that it ought not to be necessary that the cost of building should be as high as it apparently will be after the war. On the best information I can get, the view is expressed that, possibly five years after the war, the 60 per cent. increase on pre-war costs will have gone down to 50 per cent. That is not good enough, and I feel that drastic measures will have to be taken to deal with the question of the high cost of building. It is a fundamental question which will affect the number of dwellings which we can erect in the post-war years. For once I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for The High Peak. We shall have a great many financial burdens to bear, and if experience after the last war is any guide, I am satisfied that if the public has to face subsidies of the order that I have set out, which are authenticated figures, the result will be that we shall not get houses. I want to beg the Parliamentary' Secretary to give the House an assurance that this question of the high cost of building is regarded in the Ministry as of urgent priority and that steps are being taken and will be taken to deal with it.
I feel that the existing method of providing the subsidy is an unsound one. It encourages local authorities to do things which they ought not to do in order to get a higher subsidy. Take the case of flats which are built on expensive land. The subsidy is based on the number of flats built, and the more flats that are built on a site the higher the subsidy which the local authority gets. These expensive sites are generally in congested areas, and the method of providing subsidy is a direct inducement to local authorities to congest an area still further. The subsidy of £5 10s. per house, irrespective of the size of the house, is again a direct inducement to the local authorities —which, in the main, they have not fallen for—to build smaller houses than are required. It pays them better to put up two houses of two bedrooms each than one house of four bedrooms. I recognise

that that is not a matter which could have been worked out in this Bill, which is of a temporary nature, but in the time during which the Minister is to consider the whole question of subsidy I hope he will consider the general method of giving subsidies and see whether some better method can be devised.
Since several of the sub-committees of the Central Housing Advisory Committee are now functus officii, the Minister might consider asking them to consider this question. The Minister stated that when the new Bill was introduced the higher subsidy would be retrospective and would, therefore, take care of houses that will be built under this Bill. I am informed that in the discussions the Minister went rather further and gave an assurance that houses which were commenced before the war and which were completed after the war would fall in the same category. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether I am right in my assumption that that assurance was given and, if so, whether she can confirm it.
Clause 2 permits the Minister for two years from the passing of the Bill—which will not leave the authorities a very long time—to confirm orders for compulsory purchase of land for housing purposes to which objection is made, without holding a public inquiry. That is optional on the Minister. The Clause does not abolish the public inquiry, but leaves it within the discretion of the Minister. I would be glad if the Minister would have a word with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, because in his speech a week ago the latter objected to this discretion being given to the Minister of Town and Country Planning to hold an inquiry. He said that if the discretion were given the Minister would hold an inquiry every time. I would like to know whether the Minister of Health is going to adopt that attitude. I would be glad of an assurance on that point. The Minister said that the avoidance of a public inquiry would save about four months. He was understating his case considerably. I have had a large number of cases where public inquiries were not held in recent years and on the average the saving of time was eight months.
The Bill contemplates the erection of 300,000 houses in two years, but I doubt very much whether the Minister will find


that his hope of 300,000 houses started in the first two years after the war with Germany will be borne out by the facts. I should say that if he gets 200,000 he will have done very well. That would still leave, on my assumption that the real emergency need is 1,000,000 houses, about 800,000 houses to deal with. If he is right about his 300,000, it will leave 700,000. If the local authorities will have to go through the ordinary procedure the delay of eight months will continue. I submit that the provision of the 700,000 or 800,000 houses will be just as urgent as the provision of the first 300,000. I would ask, therefore, without prejudice to my view, which I agree is not shared by the majority of Members, that the public inquiry really serves no useful purpose, that this period of two years should be extended to the period of the emergency, whatever it may be—it may well be seven or eight years—until we have the 1,000,000 houses which we need in order to give every one a shelter. There ought not to be a let-down of a speeding up of the machinery. I am told by the Minister that the two years' period is based on the precedent of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1912. It was not a happy precedent, for the Minister told us that following that Act 750,000 houses were built in the first year and fewer than 30,000 in the second year. Surely we can learn from that unfortunate precedent that the powers-given by the Housing and Town Planning Act were not adequate. I hope, therefore, that we can do a little better than we did 25 years ago.
If the Minister wants to speed up the machinery, why has he not directed his attention to two other matters which cause a good deal of delay? One is the need for serving individual notices on owners and persons interested. The Minister of Town and Country Planning realised that this was holding up the acquisition of land in areas of extensive war damage. I submit that it is just as urgent to provide land for housing as it will be to acquire land in areas of extensive war damage. The Minister of Town and Country Planning has for the time being done away with the need to serve individual notices on all owners. There is a case where the delay was two years. It may not be as long as that in smaller areas, but the serving of notices may well

involve as much delay as the delay caused by the public inquiry. I hope that between now and the Committee stage it will be possible for the Minister to introduce an Amendment to abolish the need for serving individual notices, and to base himself on 'the provisions of the First Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Bill. The other matter is, that after the date when the order to acquire land is obtained there is still a possibility of delay while entering into possession and while negotiations are taking place about price. The Bill does give an expedited procedure for entering into possession, pending settlement of the price, but the procedure should be assimilated to that of the Town and Country Planning Bill, which provides 14 days' notice. If that were done, it would cause a further speeding up of the procedure.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member seems to have become a great admirer of the Town and Country Planning Bill since last week.

Mr. Silkin: I have never disguised from the House that there were some good points in it. What guidance is the Minister going to give to local authorities on the type of houses to be built? We have the Dudley Report, and I gather that something is to be said about it to local authorities. There is a vast improvement in the Dudley house upon the prewar house. For one thing, it is at least 900 square feet in area as compared with 750 or 850 before the war. That is a vital matter. I would like to know whether the local authorities will be permitted, or directed, to build houses of the standard laid down by the Dudley Report. That is very important, because many local authorities are making plans now, and they will have to decide what type of house to erect.
The Bill is a half-hearted measure at building houses, and it does not face the whole problem. It recognises that local authorities will need greater freedom and financial assistance, but it does not provide them, substantially, with that freedom, and certainly does not provide them with the financial assistance. The Bill seems to pay more attention to the susceptibilities of property owners, particularly in connection with the public inquiry, than to the reed for speedy building. As it stands, the Bill is, I


submit, not of the stuff that will substantially contribute to the speedy provision of homes. I do not propose to vote against it, but I think it will give little comfort to those who are homeless, and who have been looking forward, in the light of promises given from time to time by the Government, to securing homes quickly after the war. I hope that between now and the Committee Stage, the Minister will see his way to improve the Bill drastically, so that the procedure can be substantially expedited.

Colonel Clarke: I hope that the hon. Member who has just spoken will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him in all the details of his speech. I have listened to him with great interest, but that does not mean that I agree with him in every point, particularly on the question of individual notices. I feel that, to-day, when people are so widely scattered on their war work and many of them are abroad and are likely to be abroad for some time after the war, something in the nature of individual notices is only fair.
I heartily welcome the Bill. I believe that the provision of houses is really the paramount need of our civilisation in England to-day, and that the provision of more and better houses would not only solve the problem of shelter, but a good many other social problems as well. For that reason, in order to get a good start, I believe we should do right to accept Clause 2, under which the local authorities' inquiry is done away with for the two years after the war, and the Minister will not be bound to hold a local inquiry. In normal times and conditions, that provision should be strongly resisted, but these are not normal times. However, the Minister should bear in mind three points in this connection. The first is that, for some years after the war, individuals will continue to give up some of their rights. They have had to give them up in the war, and most people hoped that as soon as the war was over they would be allowed to have them back, but some owners will have to continue to give them up under the Bill. That should be put on record to their credit. Secondly, whatever happens, this must not be allowed to become a precedent. Thirdly, advantage should not be taken of it to acquire more land than will be required in these two or

three years after the war. We have been told that local authorities already hold sites for some 200,000 houses. Of course, they are not all in suitable places. I hope that the Minister will watch very carefully that the Clause is not made the machinery for acquiring more land than is required to start the building off, or more land than is required for building on, in the first two or three years.
With regard to the location of houses, I had an opportunity last March of finding out a little of what some of the soldiers abroad are thinking on these questions. They are taught to think about civics, and things of that sort, and I was able to ascertain some of their views on housing. Some 600 soldiers, brought from all parts of England, made a very representative section of the type of Englishman who will require a house after the war. The first point was that they were absolutely dead against flats or tenements. They all wanted houses. Secondly, the point that struck me was how very suburban-minded they were. What most of them wanted was a little house on the edge of an existing town, where they would have a certain amount of privacy, if possible, with a small garden, where they would be within ten minutes' reach or so of a shopping centre. They wanted a situation not too far from some biggish city or town as well, where they could go from time to time and find a better class of shop and entertainment. I do not know whether it is to be regretted that the greater portion of Englishmen to-day are suburbanminded men.

Mr. Silkin: Would the hon. and gallant Member apply that to London? Did they all want to live on the extreme edge of London?

Colonel Clarke: I did not get the actual proportion, but many wanted to live in toe suburbs of rather smaller towns than London, say a town of the nature of Reading or Guildford. About 30 per cent. said straight out that they wanted to live in a city like London, Manchester or Birmingham. Others would have been content to get to a city of that sort from time to time. Being a countryman, I regret to say that there was an undoubted prejudice against the country village. Very few wanted to live in a village; practically only those who had lived in a village before the war wanted to go back.


I hope there will not be too much of a drive to get people into the villages who do not want to go there. That will only result in people not staying there and the houses going to others for whom they were not intended.

Mr. Loftus: Did my hon. and gallant Friend meet anyone who had it in mind to start a small farm or smallholding, or who had any desire for country life?

Colonel Clarke: I did not specifically ask the question about smallholdings or individual agricultural training, but quite a big proportion said they would like to start a small business on their own, as a cobbler, for example, or chimney cleaner, rather than work for an employer. I cannot say anything about the small agricultural worker.
I want for a moment to refer to some remarks that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) with regard to the reconditioning of old houses. I agree that it is, aesthetically, very desirable, and that after the war it may be economically necessary, but my experience leads me to utter a word of warning about it. It is not quite satisfactory. It is difficult to make a really good house out of them, suitable for modern young couples. The old oak Elizabethan boards are very nice to look at, provided you have somebody else to keep them clean. For the housewife who has to do all those things for herself, the big cracks are homes for spiders and other insects, and it is very difficult for her to keep the place really clean. Altogether, it is not a frightfully satisfactory thing from the point of view of people who live in them, unless they are able to employ servants. That has been my experience, and it may be rather regrettable.
Lastly, I want to ask the simple question, as a county councillor: What will be the certain cases in which a contribution of £1 will be asked for from the county council? It is possible that the Minister in introducing the Bill mentioned this point, and if he did so, I must apologise to him and hope that later on he will tell us what those cases are. With those few remarks I will close. I hope it will not be thought that my speech, being very brief, does not show adequate appreciation of what I think is a very necessary

and, by and large, a very useful measure.

Mr. Jewson: I take it that we may regard this Bill as the first of a series of Measures designed to produce what we all want, the rapid building of houses. In itself, there is much that I dislike about it. I take it that all of us would agree in disliking subsidies, if only because they introduce one more complication into what is already a sufficiently complicated matter; but abnormal conditions call for abnormal remedies. I think we can all agree that a subsidy is the only way to bridge the gulf between prices which will be in force at the immediate conclusion of the war, and what we hope will be the stabilised prices of a year or two later. In the meantime, there is much to be done if we are to get houses built, and the Bill takes the right way to get it done.
The Bill deals only with subsidies for local authorities. It is obvious that we need houses built by every available means, and if we are not to get them all by subsidising local authorities, we shall have to introduce another Bill to arrange for subsidies to the private enterprise builder also. We have already had a very admirable report from one of the Committees set up by the Minister's predecessor in office, on the subject of private enterprise building. The report is based on fact rather than on theory, and is just the sort of report we want. It recognises the necessity for extending the subsidy. I take it there is no dispute about it and that the Minister does intend to deal with the matter in the very near future. It is agreed that we want houses for letting, which means that we should remind ourselves that we want landlords. Perhaps those who have taken a very poor view of landlords in the past may now change their ideas in that direction.
Landlords should be regarded as people who are performing a reputable public service in providing houses for other people to live in, not as those who are trying to exploit the needs of their fellow creatures. [An HON. MEMBER: "It depends on the landlord."] Landlords are not archangels; tenants are not archangels. Both landlords and tenants are human beings, and should be so regarded. We must surely recognise that if we want houses built to let we must make the


building of them at least a reasonably attractive proposition; at any rate we must not take measures to prevent it from being an attractive proposition.
The provisions of this Bill, which I am glad to say are temporary, relate, I take it, only to permanent houses, and that we have not to consider to-day the question of temporary hutments, however attractively fitted. There are two things I want to say about the permanent houses. The first is that they can have just as attractive fittings as the temporary houses, and temporary houses should not be accepted in greater, number than they have to be just on the ground that they are well fitted, because we must and should have these attractive fittings in our permanent houses as well. The second thing I want to say is that I hope there will be a great variety of types in the permanent houses we build. We usually think, when we talk of a permanent house, of a house built with bricks and timber. I hope that no one is still under the delusion that there will not be sufficient timber available after the war, because all those who really know are now agreed there will be a plentiful supply. In Norfolk we have houses built of flint and pantiles; in Suffolk of plaster with thatched roofs, which I am assured are pleasant things to live in. In the Cotswolds we have houses which are entirely of stone. Last, but not least, in Essex and Hertfordshire there are a great many houses built of wood which have stood the test of one, two, or even more centuries. Incidentally, the current number of the "Field" has a page of very good photographs of some of these wooden houses, mostly, I think, in Hertfordshire, but some in Kent, so they are scattered pretty widely and are very satisfactory places in which to live. I hope they will not be excluded from our plans in the future. We have only to go as far as Hampstead to see some others of that nature. I hope we shall insist on a high standard in our new houses. There should be no difficulty in that. Where architects supervise a building, of course, that will settle itself, but we also have now the Council of Registered Builders and that should be a great help to us.
As to Clause 2 of the Bill, I do not like that either, but again I think it is one we must accept as a temporary measure. We have been told by the

Minister that it will save three or four months in getting to work. If so, I feel it is fully justified. Assuming that this Bill will be followed in due course by what I regard as the consequential other Bill dealing with private enterprise building, it seems to me that this is a necessary Bill, and I hope that the House will give it a unanimous Second Reading.

Sir Irving Albery: I have listened to most of this Debate so far and the matter I particularly wish to refer to is in the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill:
This Bill is a temporary measure dealing with houses to be provided by local authorities before 1st October, 1947.
I understand that the Minister has already indicated that there will be some further provision which will enable private enterprise, or which is intended to enable private enterprise, to take its part in dealing with this very acute problem. I want to emphasise—I do not think any Member of this House can really doubt it, though I sometimes wonder whether it is fully realised by His Majesty's Government—that when this war ends the most acute, even the most dangerous, problem which will face us among all our post-war difficulties is undoubtedly the housing problem. This Bill touches but the fringe of it. With reference to the Minister's intentions that something shall be done to enable private enterprise to play its part in dealing with that problem in the early days after the war—[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. I understood that he implied that private enterprise would have a share in the first years after the war in providing for the housing requirements.

Mr. Willink: I sincerely hope so.

Sir I. Albery: What I wanted to point out is that I personally regard the matter as of so much importance that I would not be influenced for one moment by any preconceived prejudice as to who is to supply houses. If the local authorities alone can overcome our housing difficulties I would not for a moment endeavour in any way to interfere with any scheme of that kind, but I do hot believe that the local authorities alone can achieve as much as they could in combination with private enterprise. This Bill is intended to provide for the construction of £100,000


houses in the first year after the war, which number, I understand, includes 20,000 or 40,000—nobody can know precisely to-day—houses that will have been destroyed and have to be replaced, and then 200,000 in the next year. Taking into account figures which were quoted for house construction after the last war one is forced to the conclusion that if the local authorities do manage to construct the houses for which this Bill provides there will be neither material nor labour available for private enterprise. That is a matter to which I hope the Minister and the Government will pay some attention.
Another point is that those with small houses which have been destroyed by enemy action get a cost-of-works payment and presumably will have every facility for having their houses reconstructed within the numbers mentioned in the Bill. Another property owner with a rather larger house who has had his house destroyed by enemy action gets a value payment. If the whole of the building materials and building labour are to be taken up by this scheme, what are the prospects for the person whose house has been destroyed?

Mr. Willink: I think my hon. Friend is under a slight misconception. The question whether a cost of works or a value payment is made does not depend on size but on the date, and on the category by date and quality, of the house, which are decided by the War Damage Commission and the Treasury.

Sir I. Albery: I have always understood that the smaller houses were all treated as cost-of-work houses provided they were not dilapidated, that any reasonably efficiently maintained small house automatically got a cost of work payment. That is what I have always understood. On the other hand, I know of a great many cases where houses——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am not quite sure how cost of work comes in under this Bill. It seems to me that an illustration is all right, but I do not think we can debate it.

Sir I. Albery: I abide by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will not attempt to debate it any further. I mentioned it for this reason. I was endeav-

ouring to show that proposals under this Bill will so occupy the labour which is available, and from the calculations given by the Minister, the materials available, that there will be very little prospect of other people who have urgent need of houses or the reconstruction of houses which they have lost through enemy action, getting the work done. That is the point I wanted to make.
Generally speaking, subject to these criticisms, I have no objection to the Bill, but I wanted to take the opportunity of expressing the keenest anxiety about the Government's planning for post-war housing. It seems to me that the task with which they are faced should have been entrusted, I think, to a Minister of Health, a Minister of exceptional ability, which I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend is, and that the other Ministers who would be concerned should be giving him the same kind of assistance, that is, subsidiary assistance, as various Ministers have been called upon to give to the present Prime Minister as Minister of Defence in his conduct of the war. I believe it is only if the problem is tackled in that way, and if the Minister responsible for post-war housing has not only ordinary powers but quite exceptional powers, and exceptional priority, and occupies a prominent position in the Cabinet, that he can possibly deal adequately with the extremely serious situation which is likely to arise. I have an uncomfortable feeling that in the past there have been differences of opinion and, one does not like to use the word "intrigue," but it almost comes to that, between some of the Ministries which should be concerned with this difficult problem after the war.
I wish my right hon. and learned Friend every success. I would do everything in my power, and I am sure that every Member of this House would do everything in his power, to assist him in the difficult task on which he is going forward. But I would like him to bear this in mind. In 1941, the Government knew, and announced, that there was a coal crisis; and we had a Minister of Mines whom I am quite certain would have done everything in his power to solve that crisis. In 1944 we still have a coal crisis. I am more than afraid that if the present machinery for providing us with houses after the war is not


strengthened, and if the hands of the Minister of Health are not substantially strengthened, the Minister may well find himself, one, two, or three years after this date, very much in the position in which the Minister responsible for coal finds himself to-day. I do not believe that the Minister who is responsible for the mines, whoever he has been or is, has ever had adequate powers or backing to enable him to deal with the situation. I fear that my right hon. and learned Friend may find himself in the same position. If I may give him some advice, without being disrespectful, it is this. He is going to be held responsible for the success, or otherwise, of our housing programme after the war. If he cannot get all those powers which he believes to be necessary, or if he is being interfered with by any other Minister or Ministers in such a way as to put those powers in jeopardy, he had better resign, and tell the House why he has done so, rather than go on trying to perform a function the failure of which would be a calamity to the country.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have had an interesting Debate, the outstanding feature of which has been that everyone who has spoken has emphasised the gravity of this problem and has talked about its being a great human problem, the solution of which is long overdue. It has been suggested that something like 1,000,000 homes are required for the people of this country at this moment. The Minister makes his statement. He stresses the importance and the size of the problem, the drive that the Government are going to put into it, and the faith that they have to keep with the men who are fighting, and he brings forward a pettifogging little Bill, to make provision for 100,000 houses in the first 12 months after the cessation of hostilities. Is that drive? Is that an attempt to keep faith with those whom we now praise?

Major Thorneycroft: What the hon. Member says reminds one very much of what was said after the last war. Does he suggest that he or anyone else could produce more than 100,000 houses in the first year after the war? If so, how would he do it?

Mr. Edwards: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will let me explain in my own way. He is rather premature. I will come to that in my own time.

Major Thorneycroft: What is the answer?

Mr. Edwards: The answer will come in due time; and it will be in my time, and not in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's time. It will be given in my own way; it will be my own answer. I do not object to the interruption, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman might let me make my statement. The Minister says that, under this Bill, he proposes to provide, in one year after the war, 100,000 houses, and, in three years after the war, 200,000. When my hon. and gallant Friend was speaking about the 600 soldiers to whom he was talking, in France or somewhere else, he said that they stressed the fact that the greatest need they had was a home of their own. I thought that the answer to that was that only one-tenth of them would get a home in two years after the cessation of hostilities.

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend has several times used the phrase "after the cessation of hostilities." I personally think it of the greatest importance that the phrase "after the termination of hostilities in Europe" should be used. That is not the end of the war, because this is all one war; but when the war is over in Europe, we propose to get on with this programme.

Mr. Edwards: The financial memorandum made it very clear that it was after the termination of European hostilities, and I thought that that was understood. I did not intend to misrepresent my right hon. and learned Friend. Why has my right hon. and learned Friend fixed upon the figure of 100,000? That brings us to the interjection of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. In introducing this Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend has given no indication of why he has taken the figure of 100,000. Is it because there are no materials? My hon. Friend opposite has said that there is plenty of timber. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not prove it."] But he has said so, and I understand that he is an authority. He says that the timber will be there. Will the bricks be there? What is the governing factor in deciding that, in the first year's programme, only 100,000 houses can be built? The right hon. and learned Gentleman made out no case on that point. He did not seek to justify the figure. He did not contend that it


was determined by the available supply of materials. He did not say that it was determined by the available supply of labour. He did not indicate what was the productivity of a building trade worker prior to the war, and what, with modern methods, is the productivity now. There is no reference at all to the effect of all this prefabrication that can be done on internal fitments. In the presentation of his case he has not done justice to the importance of the problem.
He did not indicate that he had any great plan for dealing with this problem or that there was to be any great mobilisation of materials and labour. Apparently, he is going to rest himself upon the residue of labour that will be available after the war, without any attempt at a gigantic mobilisation of labour to provide our people with homes. We have had no indication of any standardisation of materials. We have had no indication that prices in future are not to be determined by "rings." I can understand why the subsidy is to be elastic. I warn my right hon. and learned Friend that it will not be in the interests of this country to have high subsidies in order to allow high profits for "rings" in the building industry, either for cement, bricks, light castings, hollow-ware, timber, sand, or any of those things that are necessary for building a house. We have had no indication that my right hon. "and learned Friend is bringing into review the organisation and the availability of materials, or the standardisation of them, so as to make the houses more easily assembled and at lower prices than otherwise would be necessary. That is the part of the case that was completely absent from his statement. If this Bill is an indication of the steps that the Government propose to take in this matter, I think that it is too little and too slow.

Mr. McEntee: It is not often that I defend the Minister, but I think that the Bill, as far as it goes, is good. That is all that can be said about it. It undertakes to do only two things, and I do not think that anyone will deny that each of those two things is a progressive and a good step. It enables the local authorities, for the first time, to know what the Government policy is in regard to the subsidy. Up to

now they have been quite unable to make any reasonable preparation for the housing programme, because they have had no idea of the Government's intention regarding subsidy or the acquisition of land. Those two points are all that the Bill deals with, and on both points, in my view, the Government take a progressive step, which will enable local authorities, for the first time, to make real progress in preparing for building at the earliest possible moment.
Having said that, I would like to offer a good deal of criticism, not of what is in the Bill but of what might have been in it. Time will not permit me to do that. Reference has been made to the possibility of subsidies for private enterprise. There is a body of people, or organisations, between private enterprise and public authorities, which it might be possible to consider in connection with this Bill. They might help, both in regard to the possibility of building a larger number of houses and in regard to the time which it would take to build them. Public authorities, like the Port of London Authority, the Metropolitan Water Board, and others, have, in the past, built houses, for their own employees mainly, and if they could be encouraged to build houses, by the extension of the subsidy, it would be of material advantage. Another body which has done a great deal in the building of houses is the Housing Association. That association always used to get subsidies, and I presume that it will get them again if the subsidy is extended to private enterprise. Because this association and public utility concerns are non-profit making, I think they could be brought in, with local authorities, to get the subsidy now. In regard to the acquisition of land, everybody will be glad to hear that the time is being shortened. I suggest that it must be still further shortened, and that it can be if regard is paid to the advertisements which are put into the public Press, notifying that the local authorities mean to take possession of land and in the time that is taken, very often, in trying to find out who the actual owner is. In many cases, a number of people are interested in the ownership of a piece of land, and it may take months to find out who they are. I hope some consideration will be given to that point.
In regard to materials, it is said, quite rightly, that the things you want for building houses—apart from money, and the Government have plenty of money, so we need not worry about that—are men and materials. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) in an interesting speech suggested that we should bring men out of the Services for the purpose of building houses for the men in the Services. I do not think we should make a slogan that everybody must remain in the Services, just for the sake of keeping them there. I could give examples of hundreds of people brought out of the Services because they had nothing to do in the Services. If any proof is needed, I could centainly give it, and so could many other hon. Members. What is the good of keeping mechanics in the Army, for work far below their standard of ability, when they might be building or repairing houses for the people in the Services, of whom we talk such a great deal? Did we not bring men out of the Services for the purpose of building barracks and camps? We took them from the Services to build the housing accommodation for other men in the Services; why cannot we bring men out to enable them to build houses for the personnel, now in the Services, who will need houses when they come out? It is no use telling them that, two years after they have come out of the Services, one in ten of them may have a chance of getting a house. That is not good enough for them and it will not satisfy them. I think the Minister should engage in consultations with other Ministers, who have so many people on their staffs whom they are unable to use. Many of these people are skilled in the building industry and have not done a stroke of work worth considering as work, during the last year or two.

Mr. Molson: I did not say that men in the Services were all being engaged usefully. But I understand that there is still an acute shortage of men for the Army, and I was opposed to any reduction of the Army for the purpose of house building if the men are required in the Army for fighting.

Mr. McEntee: I am not saying that if the men are needed by the Army, they should be taken out. I do say there are men in the Army who would be very much better engaged in building houses for themselves and for other men in the

Services. I think a good deal of speeding up might be done in that direction.
I beg the Minister not to be too conservative in regard to the building of houses. New materials are coming on to the market and are under consideration. Some of them I know, and the Minister knows, and some of them have been tested and it has been proved that they could be used to speed up the provision of houses I hope we are not going to talk about the possibility of getting timber. The Timber Trades' Association told me there was plenty—in Africa and India. But in the first place, it is quite unsuitable for building houses; in the second place, it is not easily available, and, in the third place, the transport is not likely to be available for some considerable time after the war. Whether that particular material is available or not, it would be well to pay attention to the stage at which we are going to use timber. Of all building materials, the one that has gone up most in price is timber, and, if it is not reduced in price, it would probably be uneconomic to use it in house-building at all. Unless timber is very much reduced in price, these other materials will be used as substitutes for timber, and, in my view, equally good houses can be built without timber. The timber interests will have to look after themselves, and if they do not, they may find themselves entirely shut out of the building industry because newer, cheaper and equally good materials are being found.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I think I have listened to practically all the speeches in this Debate, and I think that practically every speaker has said, as the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) has just said, that this Bill has two good points, and that the House agrees with those two points. I think that is one thing for which the Minister may be thankful. Though the two points in this Bill are agreed by everybody, the Debate has turned on other points concerning wider aspects of housing for the future, and I will do my best to answer the questions which have been addressed to us. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow and others who spoke before him, realising the difficulty, which we all realise, of providing houses for people returning from the war, have said "Why not bring back men from the Services now? "Hon. Members have said that


people in the Services who are skilled in particular branches of building are not now being fully used.

Mr. McEntee: I did not mean to say that they should be brought back now—immediately. It is no use bringing them back until the plans are ready and the materials are ready for them to use. I meant bringing them back at the earliest opportunity.

Miss Horsbrugh: Some hon. Members have said "Bring them out now," and I think the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) was one of them. I want hon. Members, if they will, to realise what the position is. If we are to do this work which the Minister has suggested at the end of the hostilities in Europe, we shall be bringing people back from the Services to do this work while we are still engaged in fighting a war—and fighting a war that may need great efforts on the part of this country and of the Services. The Government have made it clear that, so far as we can sec, that will be the earliest opportunity of being able to release men from the Services; that is, when the first part of the war is concluded. I know that hon. Gentlemen will say that people will be coming home from the war and that there will not be houses for them, and will ask, "What is the use of waiting until then?" Surely we must face the fact that the enemy has yet to be beaten, and that we have still got to defend this country against the destruction of houses, and have to use all the powers we can to defend ourselves against such destruction. Not until the enemy is beaten in Europe, and a certain number of men from the Forces can be released from their work to build houses, can we begin even the smallest building programme.
This has been stated over and over again, but I think, after what has been said to-day, it would be well to state it again. The Minister of Labour has assured me that the number of men required for the Forces still is a large number, and I can assure hon. Members that it is not at this moment a case of being able to withdraw people from the Forces. We are thankful that the casualties have been as light as they have been in Normandy, but do not let us shut our eyes to the big job which we have still

got to do, and to the fact that many people, who have not yet had an opportunity of doing very much at home, may be called upon to do a very big job overseas before the real end of this war comes about. It is against that background that I ask hon. Members to consider the housing suggestions made in connection with this Bill, and the two points which are agreed by everybody.
The two agreed points are that the housing subsidy should be made general, because local authorities will want to know now what the policy is to be, and, secondly, that it would not be desirable or necessary to have the delay of a public inquiry on the acquisition of land. Some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for West Walthamstow, and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards)—whose speech I did not think was very constructive—asked how we had arrived at this building programme, while the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), far from thinking that the Government might be able to do more than build 300,000 houses in two years, thought the figure would only be in the neighbourhood of 200,000. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) wanted to see a bigger housing plan and asked "Why bring in Bills like this in little instalments?"
I would like to suggest to the House that there has been a good deal of comparison with what was done after the last war. We are all agreed, I think, from the speeches I have heard, that the promises were too big, the subsidy was too big and the result was too few houses. Looking back—it is no use blaming people now. It is easy to see that the scheme was a big scheme, the subsidies were big subsidies, but they did not, as the hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out, take account of many other essential matters, such as men and materials. Therefore, you got a scheme which was out of proportion to the amount of men and materials available to produce the houses, and the result was disastrous, apart from the disappointment and disillusionment which it caused. The hon. Member for Rotherham said that the speech of the Minister would cause disillusionment to the people of this country, but if the facts are that, with the men and materials available at the end of hostilities in Europe, we could not produce more—and


the hon. Member for Peckham thinks we shall produce less—are we not right in saying so to the people of the country? If we can do better, it will be a pleasurable surprise, but if, in this House, we said now that we would be able to produce more houses than we can, we would be asking the people of this country to deceive themselves and this would cause disappointment and disillusionment.
Hon. Members have asked how this number is arrived at, and whether we have just made a guess at 200,000 or 300,000. That number has been thought out as the likely amount, after consultations with the Minister of Labour on the subject of man-power and with the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Works on the subject of materials.

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is the first time we have had that.

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member will look in HANSARD, he will find a lot of Questions and answers about it. If he wants any more reading matter, he can ask in the Vote Office for the White Paper on the building industry which was published by my right hon. Friend some months ago. If he reads these, he will have some information on the facts that have been given during the last half year.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought the Bill was being presented.

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member will read the White Paper, he will see what is the scheme which has been laid down. Hon. Members will agree with us in taking the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who, in his White Paper, has set out how he thinks that the building industry can again be built up; and we have taken the advice of the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Works on the subject of materials. Having taken that advice we came to the conclusion, as stated, that 300,000 houses could be built in the first two years. The hon. Member for Peckham says that he thinks we have gone rather too far, and that may be so.
The hon. Lady spoke about instalments, but I believe that, because of the difficulties of the present situation, it is better to work by instalments. That is the reason why it has been decided that the subsidy and the new arrangement about public inquiries should be of a temporary

nature. We cannot say when the war, even in Europe, is going to end. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has made as near an estimate as he can of the building labour that might be available at the time, but we have still to go through a very difficult time before we can be certain that these men for whom hon. Members are asking can be brought out of the Forces. One does not know whether these men will be there to come out of the Forces, as we have a big and difficult part of this war still to fight. We are not able to face the housing situation with complete knowledge, and, therefore, I think that it is better to proceed by the instalment principle. It is a more reasonable principle than that adopted at the end of the last war when a grand plan was made, and we had a grand failure. We want to see whether we cannot do better.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham asked, "Cannot you use any of the building labour now? You have now built your aerodromes and barracks, and what about that labour?" It has been arranged that a certain amount of that labour shall be put on to the preparation of housing sites. That scheme, as I think the hon. Member for Caerphilly will have heard, has been discussed in this House two or three times. I would like the hon. Gentleman to recall what is happening, and what has been happening for some time. Any building labour, I can assure the House, that is available is being fully used. While the destruction of houses is continuing, I can assure hon. Members that the need for building labour is not being overlooked. There is more work for builders in this country to-day than they are able to tackle and we are getting assistance from the Services in this emergency. Hon. Members will understand that it is impossible to think of starting to make use of building labour in this country now for the building of new houses.
Most hon. Members said that it was a good thing that public local inquiry is not to take place, at all events during the transition period of two years. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey said she would like this to be extended beyond two years, and other hon. Members said that we ought to watch the position carefully. Again, by means of the instalment plan, we shall be able to test the scheme and see how it works. My own feeling is that, although they sometimes cause de-


lay, public inquiries are democratic institutions. Sometimes democratic methods may work more slowly than dictatorial schemes, but they may be a great deal better. We are asking for this power of compulsory purchase without a public inquiry for this particular length of time, and we shall see then how it works. I think that the House will be in agreement to that extent.
The hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) who, I know, cannot be in her place at the moment, as she has explained to me, spoke of the difficulty in some areas where there are houses which have been condemned but which it has not yet been possible to repair. We know that much repair and maintenance work will need to be done at the end of the war, and that this has been mounting up; there will be not merely repair work due to war damage but also the ordinary repairs which have not been carried out. Therefore, it will be necessary to deal with this question of maintenance and repairs. Many houses, quite repairable at the beginning of the war, may now have become completely unfit because of lack of repair. The hon. Lady said that it would be a pity to pull down houses when, during the first few years after the war, there would be actual shortage of shelter. Without going further into the schemes she suggested, I would say that we are all agreed that, in the first few years after the war, even shelter will be difficult to obtain and I can assure the hon. Lady that it will not be the policy to pull down and demolish such houses before other houses have been built.
It may be that houses which are not as fit as they ought to be, will still have to be occupied until the building programme is advanced, and we have been able to produce more houses by the different means, of which my right hon. and learned Friend made mention to-day. Whether these houses should be repaired, I cannot say at this time, but I can say—and I think hon. Members will agree with me—that there is great waste in repairing houses which will not make really suitable and good dwellings for the future. There is all the difference between saying that people might still have to live for some years after the war in a house not fully up to standard and one which ought to have improvements, and saying "Im-

prove and repair the house so that you may bring it up to the required standard."

Miss Lloyd George: Does the hon. Lady include condemned houses in that category?

Miss Horsbrugh: I was trying to make it clear that people may still have to live for a time in such houses before new houses are built. It is a very different story to say that you should repair those houses. It will be impossible for everybody now living in condemned houses to get new houses immediately after the war, because there will be many families with no houses at all after the war. I was interested to note that three hon. Members who spoke are all members of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, and I think the House would agree that we should congratulate them on their reports, which have just been produced. The three members of that Committee put different points and asked whether their recommendations were to be carried out. The hon. Gentleman thė Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) asked particularly whether the recommendation concerning the reconditioning of rural houses would be accepted. It was on 13th. July that the Minister, in reply to a Question, said that he was accepting that recommendation. He is not dealing with it in this Bill as this is to extend the range of subsidy for general purposes. Future legislation will be brought forward dealing with the amount of subsidy and of the increase of grant for the reconditioning of rural workers' houses. I think that that answers that particular point.
The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey put building costs at the end of the war at 100 per cent. above the prewar costs, and the hon. Member for Peckham thought that they would be 60 per cent. above the pre-war costs, and that later on they might be reduced to 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Peckham pointed out that, if the cost of building the house remained as high as it was to-day, the subsidy would have to be a higher subsidy if such a house was to be let at 10s. a week plus rates. That demonstrates the impossibility at the moment of saying what the costs will be. There is one thing with regard to which we are all in agreement, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health realises it, and that is, that it is absolutely necessary to bring


down the cost of producing houses in this country if the people are to be housed. It has been pointed out by some hon. Members including the hon. Member for Peckham that you must give a subsidy, or a bigger subsidy if prices increased. We have learned in the past that that is no use. It was believed that you had only to produce more money and you would have more houses simply because you increased the subsidy. We have learned better than that. As I have said, I agree with hon. Members who have spoken, that is is a prime necessity to reduce the price of producing houses.
Hon. Members may ask how we are going to do it. I would be very pleased if I could tell hon. Gentlemen. I would remind hon. Members that the Bill we are discussing concerns two points; it is an instalment; its intention is that we shall be able to get the local authorities to make plans; but it is not the full answer in any way to how we are to deal with the housing problem. My Noble Friend the Minister of Works is examining the question of materials, including the price of the materials, and is making inquiries as to building costs and the reasons for the high cost of building at this time. We must await from him an explanation of the high cost of building to-day and any suggestions that he—and it is his Department and not ours that is concerned—has to make for bringing down those costs. As the Housing Department we in the Ministry of Health, thoroughly agree that the cost of building houses must come down if the people of this country are to be properly housed; adding on an increasing subsidy is not going to do it.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask if we shall be given, later, a figure to which, in the opinion of the Ministry, price costs ought to be reduced?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Gentleman asked me whether a figure will be given——

Mr. Lipson: Or a percentage increase on pre-war figures.

Miss Horsbrugh: But I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is my Noble Friend the Minister of Works who has to deal with costs of building. My Noble Friend is examining the cost of materials and the cost of building, and questions

on these matters must be addressed to him. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has brought forward this Bill in order to allow the local authorities to make plans. Hon. Gentlemen have said that the local authorities for some time have wanted to know what the general scheme was, and whether there would be a subsidy. In consultation with us they have agreed that at the present time it would not be possible to state what that subsidy is to be. What they did want to know, and if the House passes this Bill they will know it, was that they are to have a subsidy for general housing as well as for slum clearance and overcrowding. The other difficulty was whether they would have the land quickly enough. It will be the law of the land, if this Bill is passed, that it will not be necessary to hold a public inquiry.
I know that many hon. Members would like to be able to look further into the housing programme of the future but I would ask them to consider whether, with the facts that are before us at this time, we could do so with any finality. We can see a first stage. We know we cannot build new houses at present. We have a vast amount of repair work to do and we cannot get more men from the Forces to do it. The next stage we see is the end of hostilities in Europe—some people being released from the Forces while the war with Japan continues—and a start being made in our housing scheme. In this transition period of two years or so every house that can be built will be built, and my right hon. Friend and I will be only too glad if we can go beyond the estimated 300,000. During that period the subsidy, whatever it may be, will be for general housing as well as for slum clearance and overcrowding, and we shall have this quicker method of acquiring the land.
Some hon. Members have suggested that there are other ways still in which we could get that land more quickly, and they referred to various points in the Town and Country Planning Bill. I think, on the whole, we are satisfied that we shall get it quickly. We think, on the whole, that what we have asked the House to agree to for this period is sufficient. If it is not, we will certainly come back to the House. That covers this next difficult period. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that, in addition, there will be emergency houses and houses damaged


through enemy action which we have been repairing for some time, but which will have to be built up. We have got to bring in everything we can—private enterprise, local authorities, emergency houses, and repaired war-damaged houses. Everything possible must be used for the shelter of our people. In future we want to build better than we have built in the past. We hope now to profit by the mistakes that were made after the last war—when we thought out a grand programme, provided plenty of money, and did not look to the amount of men and material we had.
We hope to do better, but any hon. Member who in this House or in the country states to the people of this country that they can all be housed at the end of this war, and that they can all be better housed, is doing a very great disservice. There has been no building for five years, or practically no building: there has been very little repair and maintenance for five years; there have been five years of damage by the enemy. We were just getting on before the war. Our schemes had been good, we were getting on with slum clearance and with overcrowding. We could see at last that we were about to meet the needs of the people of this country, and then the war came. Everything has all been put back. Some people talk as if housing after the war were going to be easier because of the war. The whole thing has been put back, but I believe that, if we work together, even on an instalment scheme, hammering out the best bit by bit, we shall be able to do the job. We shall tell the people frankly of the difficulties, and they will put up with the post-war difficulties in the same spirit as they have put up with the difficulties of wartime.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I would like to ask the hon. Lady a question. We are going to give a subsidy of £5 10s. now, and the local authority has to give no more than £2 15s. subsidy. The houses are to be built inside two years. Who is to pay the difference in the rent of the house that is going to be built for £450? The hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) gave a figure of £450 for a three-roomed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Prewar."] Keep quiet and let me finish what I have to say. That was pre-war.

A similar type of house will cost now, not less than £750, and I am putting it at the lowest figure. If it takes £750, and the Minister is to give £5 10d. 0d. and the local authorities £2 15s. 0d., is the local authority to bear the difference out of the rates in future or will the Government bear the difference? I do not want to prolong this. There were a good few other things I wanted to say. but I will say no more.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry my hon. Friend was not quite clear on what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his opening remarks. The amount of the subsidy has not yet been fixed. The local authorities have agreed that it is as well not to fix the amount at this time. The reason for mentioning a subsidy in this Bill is to bring the subsidy for general housing on to the same level as we have at present for overcrowding and slum clearance. At a later date, after consultation with the local authorities and after reviewing the situation, we shall bring legislation on the subsidy. My right hon. and learned Friend made it quite clear that this is not a subsidy under which the building in the two years will be done, and that further legislation will be brought to the House. We are all agreed that we cannot, at this time, say what the subsidy ought to be. I hope I have made it clear that the amount of the subsidy under which these houses will be built in two years has not yet been decided.

Mr. G. Griffiths: But the Minister has told us that some of these houses will be up in six months.

Hon. Members: Where?

Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure my hon. Friend that new house-building cannot go on at this moment. I have tried to make that clear. When new houses are built in the future under this Bill, when it becomes law, if the subsidy is increased, it will be made retrospective to the time when the houses were built. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that he can disillusion himself of any thought that there will be house-building and houses put up in six months because I am afraid that there will not——

Mr. McEntee: Mr. McEntee rose——

Mr. Speaker: This is not the Committee stage of the Bill; this is the Second Reading.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: May I put this point to the hon. Lady? She did not make it quite clear in the course of her speech, admirable as it undoubtedly was. She was arguing with great cogency towards the latter part of her speech that, if we go on raising the subsidy we automatically raise the cost of the house for which the subsidy is given. Surely that argument applies to the orginal subsidy with just as great validity as to any subsequent raising of the subsidy? That is exactly in accordance with our experience when we raised the subsidy before. Year by year, when Mr. Neville Chamberlain occupied the position now occupied by my right hon. Friend, he brought that forward in debate that the only result of giving the subsidy was to increase the average cost of the houses subsidised by the exact amount of the subsidy. At that time I was building a large number of houses myself and I have watched the effect. It worked out in practice exactly as I have said. The hon. Lady herself went a very long way towards agreeing with that, when she said most specifically in her speech that raising the subsidy raised the cost of the house. Can any logical argument be adduced to show that that argument does not apply with equal validity to the original subsidy? It is the point I put time after time to the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, when he was Minister of Health, and eventually he used exactly the argument I am going to use now. If the hon. Lady were selling oranges from a barrow in the street for a penny each and found that she could sell 100 oranges per diem, and then the Government came along and said that, to every purchaser of one of her oranges, they would give a subsidy of a halfpenny, undoubtedly the hon. Lady would raise the price to 1½d. each and would sell identically the same number of oranges. Now can the hon. Lady refute that argument or show any fallacy contained in it?

Miss Horsbrugh: Miss Horsbrugh rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has spoken twice already, I think.

Mr. McEntee: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order to put to the hon. Lady now the fact that she did not answer a specific question I put to her? May I ask her if she will be good enough to answer it?

Mr. Speaker: If it is a specific question, yes. I think the House would allow that.

Mr. McEntee: Would the hon. Lady make some reference to a specific question I asked with regard to public utility societies and housing associations, in reference to the subsidy?

Miss Horsbrugh: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I did not answer his question. He will find that my right hon. and learned Friend made the statement in his opening speech, that public utilities will come under the scheme for private enterprise. If the hon. Gentleman looks in HANSARD to-morrow he will see that my right hon. and learned Friend included the very words "public utilities and housing associations" in his speech.

Mr. G. Griffiths: But not in this Bill.

Miss Horsbrugh: I must not be drawn into another speech. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he will introduce legislation on the subject of subsidies for private enterprise. My hon. Friend will see that under that come public utilities and housing associations, as stated by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Drewe.]
Committee upon Friday.

HOUSING (TEMPORARY PRO VISIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the making of contributions under Section one of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, as respects new housing accommodation provided by local authorities before the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Section four of the said Act of 1938 which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session removing, as respects new housing accommodation provided as aforesaid, the limitation of contributions


under the said Section one to certain classes of housing accommodation."—(King's Recommendation signified.)— [Mr. Willink. )

Resolution to be reported upon Friday.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
There are three major interests, I think, in Scotland to-day. There is the general interest to end this war as speedily and successfully as possible; there is the interest as to housing conditions immediately after the war is over; and there is the interest as to employment after the war. I think I am right in saying that these are the three major interests—a house, a job and the successful ending of the war. As has been frequently stated here to-day, the Government have set themselves the target of 300,000 new long-term houses in the period between now and 1st October, 1947. Doubts have been expressed as to whether it will be possible to secure that number—whether it will be possible to get the skilled labour in time to do it. My own belief is that we shall not be able to do it, 'but we ought to aim at doing it, and we ought to take every possible step in our power to see that the 300,000 houses are secured in the two years. We have asked that, of the 300,000, 50,000 shall be allocated to Scotland. Our needs are overwhelming. Our overcrowding is six times the overcrowding in England. Our infant mortality is higher. Our tuberculosis rate is increasing, and housing conditions in many of our industrial areas—and, indeed, in many of our rural areas as well—are deplorable and desperate.
If we can get these 300,000 houses for Britain, and if we can get 50,000 for Scotland, or any other number, how are they to be allocated? This Bill says that the methods at present legal for allocating these houses are insufficient. The present statutory provisions are that houses can be supplied by local authorities to persons who have come from slum houses, and from overcrowded houses and also to agricultural workers, but the Government say, and all the housing advisers and local authorities in the country say, that that is not sufficient, and

that houses must be supplied for other classes besides these three. They say that we must have power to allocate houses for general needs. When the young fellow who wants to get married, comes back from the front, he cannot be condemned to celibacy for the rest of his natural life. That is an impossible position, and the local authorities must be empowered, to the maximum of their opportunities, to allocate houses for general needs. That is the first part of this Bill. We must widen the option under which local authorities may let houses in the first two-and-a-half years or so after the war and, indeed, before then if houses are built. These powers operate as from the passing of this Bill.
I further propose to urge local authorities to use the powers which they possess at present—their statutory powers—to provide at cost essential furnishings for these dwellings. There are some authorities who have used these powers. Glasgow, for example, provides bedsteads, spring mattresses, flock mattresses, bedding, including blankets and sheets, floor covering, chests of drawers, and so on, at cost price. Why not? The other day I had an interview with a deputation representing the Scottish Furniture Manufacturers Association, and they assured me that the normal addition to the cost of furniture that was put on sale under the hire purchase system was 120 per cent. Obviously, if we are to take slum clearance tenants, soldiers from the front, or overcrowded tenants, and simply give them the key to the door of a new house and tell them to go away and find furniture for themselves on the hire purchase system, then we shall condemn thousands upon thousands of these people to a life of misery and starvation. The power is now vested in local authorities to provide at cost price essential furnishings, and I propose to do everything in my power to urge local authorities to use that provision of the Act.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Is the right hon. Gentleman just making a declaration of his intentions in an administrative capacity? Is he suggesting that there is no provision made in this particular Bill?

Mr. Johnston: I said that it was already in the statutory provision. It has been there, I think, since 1925. [An


HON. MEMBER: "Does Scotland know that?"] No, but I am trying to make it known, and I am doing my best to see that the powers provided by Parliament are operated.
There is another point I would like to make. I am almost certain that the traditional methods of labour supply are quite inadequate to meet emergencies of this type. I was gratified some months ago to meet a deputation from workers engaged in a big shipyard at Greenock. They were building trade workers, joiners and so on, attached to the shipbuilding industry. They suggested that in their spare time—and they said there were thousands like them on the Clyde—they were prepared to do everything in their power to augment the labour supply. I urged these men to consider the question of incorporating themselves into a building guild. I regret to say that up to now that what I think are very reasonable conditions have not been accepted. The building trade unions, I think very reasonably, said that everybody who was employed in this building guild should have a union card and that before he was employed all other building trade labourers in the district should be fully employed.

Mr. Sloan: Are we to understand that these men are proposing to enter the building trade after their normal day's work? Can the Minister say what is the absentee rate in the industry in which they are at present employed?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot say off-hand. This was an official proposal put up by the building trade workers themselves and——

Mr. McEntee: Surely the Minister is not right in saying that it was official?

Mr. Johnston: I am saying that the men in the Greenock shipbuilding industry came to me with their Member of Parliament and said that they would do their best to augment the labour supply for building in their area, and I say that the Building Trade Federation for West Scotland assented to this proposal and offered to do everything they could to help, so great is the necessity of the time and the urgency of this housing problem.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to look at the history of the building guild that did operate? If he cares to have it, I will give him my own experience.

Mr. Johnston: It would be a pleasure to look at anything of that kind, but I am merely stating the facts as I know them, and as these men have put them forward. I say that the conditions which it was sought to impose upon the offer of their labour, were not unreasonable, and ought to have been more sympathetically examined. I beg, here and now, that they will be examined further still and that in view of the urgency of our problem, no step will be omitted which will enable us to augment the labour force at our disposal for house building.
We say that we must extend the options of the local authorities. Speed in erection is far too slow, even now. We got two separate allocations of 1,000 houses in Scotland. Of the first 1,000, I regret to say that we have, at this moment, only 290 roofed over. There is a variety of reasons for the delay. Of the second 1,000 that were allocated in March of this year we have, fortunately, been able to get tenders accepted for 873, and I am hoping that by the early part of August tenders will be accepted for the whole 1,000. When they will be erected with the present labour supply, is another matter. Questions were raised to-day, on the English Measure which the House has just been considering, about owner-occupancy. That does not arise in this Bill but we have asked our Housing Advisory Committee to report on how owner-occupancy might be stimulated. I would point out that for the first two years or so after the war, all building trade contractors, all building trade workers and labourers, will be fully employed on producing houses to let. No building trade contractor or operator need go idle.
We seek to short-circuit the delays that local authorities have experienced in acquiring land compulsorily. Up to now, delays of six months may take place. if we can abolish the public inquiry, the necessity to serve notices upon every individual interested in land ownership, we can save about three months in cases where there is objection to acquisition of


land. Where there is no objection, where acquisition takes place by concurrence and agreement, these questions do not arise. I am happy to be able to say that local authorities in Scotland own land, much of it serviced with drainage and water supply, sufficient for 56,000 houses. We are negotiating for land for another 13,000 to bring the total to 69,000, and I am hoping that by the end of this year local authorities will have sufficient land for 100,000 houses. Of course, the land is not equally distributed over all areas. Some areas are badly supplied and some are well supplied. In this Measure we are taking steps to develop our Special Housing Association, which is a non-profit making organisation appointed by the Government to assist local authorities in a provision of houses. They have had considerable experience already, and we are proposing now to extend their power and to entrust them with wider power than they have ever had so that between them and the local authorities we shall be able to do something wherever there is, unfortunately, a price ring against the public interest. There are areas where price rings have, unfortunately, become obvious.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is private enterprise.

Mr. Johnston: Not the Special Housing Association?

Mr. Kirkwood: No, the rings.

Mr. Johnston: Yes, the contractors; they are operating against local authorities. We have invited other gentlemen to join the board of this Association and I am happy to say that men like Bailie Forman of Glasgow, Bailie Patterson of Ayr, and Councillor Robertson of Edinburgh have joined the board. The Lord Provost of Dundee will act as chairman of the board in place of Lord Traprain, who resigned some time ago and whose services were given very willingly, with considerable acceptance by the local authorities.
I should also like to thank Mr. McKinna, who gave his services for so long and so gratuitously in Lord Traprain's absence, and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Welsh), who has unfortunately been laid aside by illness for some months and who took a very keen

interest in the affairs of the Housing Association. We have secured Mr. W. C. Davidson's appointment as full time deputy-chairman. He has been a member of the council of management since its inception. He has had a long experience in local government and housing. He is a trained surveyor and we hope that, between him and the Lord Provost of Dundee and the new blood that we are putting into the Association, it will be of very considerable importance in the future. Mr. Norman Campbell, former Town Clerk of Kilmarnock, will continue to act as general manager and secretary of the reconstituted Association. His duties and responsibilities, of course, will be increased. He has had a long experience of local government administration and has proved of great value during his five years as general manager. His administrative capacity and organising ability will 'be at the disposal of the Association.
As with England, so we have serious problems about subsidies and about rents. We have discussed the question of future subsidies with the local authorities and they have agreed with us that the present is an inopportune time to raise the question of how and to what extent the subsidies should be increased. Prices are indeterminate now and losses cannot be guessed. The local authorities are in entire concurrence with us that the question of subsidies must for the present remain in abeyance, with this proviso that, when they are fixed at some later date, they will be made retrospective until this date. These in brief are the principles of the Bill. It is a modest but a necessary Bill. If we are to have 50,000 houses, we must allocate them better, we must see that no land difficulties stand in the way and we must ensure that price rings are not raised against us. Other Measures will be brought forward in due course to deal with the housing difficulties, but this Measure is necessary. It will go some way to ease the position of local authorities. They all welcome it and I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will the allocation of houses be on a percentage basis according to the number of houses now required in each area, or will it be by some ad hoc method?

Mr. Johnston: I should like to look into that. There is something to be said, of course, for fixing a formula for allocation. On the other hand, it is exceedingly difficult to stick to a formula of that kind. It would be utterly impossible, for instance, to allocate houses to Clydebank or any area of that kind on the basis of a formula. No formula has yet been fixed and I am not sure it would be wise to fix one.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Housing Association that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, the organisation created by Mr. Baldwin for the purpose of erecting the first steel houses?

Mr. Johnston: No, that was another association. It is still in existence. I forget the name of it but my right hon. Friend will be able to give it later on. It was started about 1937 for the purpose of aiding local authorities in distressed areas to build houses when they could not do it out of their own resources.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In listening to my right hon. Friend I felt how much he and the Government must wish they were in the position of the small child who returned from church, where she had heard the first chapter of Genesis read. Laying out all her dolls on a table, she put a cloth over them and said, "God said, 'Let there be dollies' and there were dollies." She seized the cloth and the dollies appeared. If my right hon. Friend could by some magic word bring into view the houses which the people of Scotland so much need, how happy he and his Government would be. But, unfortunately, we all know that not good will, and not even money subsidies, will produce houses. Knowing, as we all do, the terrific need that there is for housing in the whole of Great Britain, and in particular in Scotland, we sympathise with the Government in their efforts, inadequate as both they and we know them to be. None of us who come from Scotland can overlook the grave shortage which existed even before the war, and which has been so greatly increasing during the war. I never go to my constituency and ask that people should come and give me their complaints but I have numbers of people who want me to find them a house. They come with tears in their eyes pointing out that the space that they have to

occupy cannot be called a house except by a misuse of words. Either it is insanitary or its position is such that the light of day never enters it, or it is grossly overcrowded, or the amenities of the house are not those which a human being should be asked to live in.
It is one of my griefs, which I am sure is shared by other Members, that we can do nothing at present really adequate to meet this terrific demand. Therefore we approach this Bill, as we do any other Bill dealing with housing, with that background which we shall never forget The Government cannot create houses by any magic wand, and even this Bill, important though it is, cannot do the impossible. Let us examine what the Bill proposes to do. In the first place, it seeks to remove a limitation on the local authorities taking part in a general housing programme. All those needing houses who came outside certain fixed categories have hitherto had to depend on the mercy of the speculative or other private builder to get a house. This Bill for the first time allows local authorities to build houses for other than the specified categories to which they have been limited.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is it true that no local authority in Scotland may under the present laws build a house without a subsidy?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: At present no local authority can obtain a subsidy for building a house for anybody unless he belongs to certain specified categories and I do not think that under present conditions, with men coming home from the war, the House can take any exception to an alteration in that law. In the second place, the Bill seeks to get rid of some of the delay in acquiring land which is caused by the necessity for a public inquiry. Whatever may be the merits of a public inquiry in general, if present circumstances demand this accelerated procedure I do not think the House will care or dare to stand in the way of that provision. The Secretary of State told us that there was enough land in Scotland in the possession of local authorities to build 100,000 houses

Mr. Johnston: Fifty-six thousand houses up to now, with another 13,000 under immediate negotiation; and I hope that the land for 100,000 will be in the possession of the local authorities by the end of this year.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: As I understand it, that is independent of this Bill. However sufficient those 100,000 houses might be if they were distributed properly over the whole country, it is clear that, whereas there may be ample land for housing in certain parts of the country, there is not ample land in other parts. It is for that purpose mainly, as I understand it, that this Bill is required. The third main provision of the Bill relates to the possibility of building houses by the Scottish Housing Association. Those who know the facts will agree that the powers that this Bill seeks to confer are necessary in certain parts of the country to enable the houses to be built and to prevent local authorities being held up to ransom. These are the main features of the Bill, and I do not think the House will boggle at them in any way.
I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to clear up one difficulty in my mind about the numbers. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health was speaking on the last Bill, he said, if I understood him aright, that the 100,000 houses for one year and the 300,000 altogether in two years were for all types of houses being built by the local authorities and by private enterprise, and applied to England, Wales and Scotland. As I read the Financial Memorandum to the English Bill, these figures apply only to England and Wales and only to those built by the local authorities. I should like that apparent discrepancy cleared up. It may be that one figure is for the finished article and the other for those in being. As I understood the Minister of Health's speech, it was at variance with the statements given in the Explanatory Memorandum to his own Bill. I gathered that it does not affect the Scottish position, which is, I understand, that we are to have in Scotland 50,000 out of the 300,000. In view of the much worse housing conditions in Scotland, which are a by-word, no one, I think, will grudge the larger proportion in Scotland.
There is another great question which does not arise directly under the Bill. That is the cost of building in Scotland. The notorious fact that a house in Scotland costs a great deal more to build than a house in England militates against getting forward with the programme in Scotland. This may not be the right occasion to discuss that point, but it is

one that has never been resolved and the Government really ought to tackle it. With regard to the question of building now, it was pointed out when the English Bill was under discussion that there was no English labour available for building new houses because it was all required for the current damage. The damage inflicted a year or two ago extended to Scotland, but the current damage is confined to England, and Southern England at that. Therefore, any labour that is available in Scotland should be free to build new houses, and I hope that we may get an assurance that even before the end of the war there may be a start on this programme of new building. I would like to say how much I support the right hon. Gentleman in the remarks he made about essential furniture. That is not precisely within the four corners of this Bill, but the efforts he has made in the past and is continuing to make to get that dealt with by the local authorities are worthy of all praise. I recognise the great value of this to those who go into a house with very little money and whom we do not want to throw on the mercy of the hire-purchase people. I believe that the Bill will have an easy, passage through the House. It is one that commends itself to me and those who sit with me on these benches. Though there may be points of detail about which questions will be raised I believe the House will have no hesitation in giving unanimous support to the Second Reading.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) is right in his forecast that the Bill will have an easy passage. We all recognise that it is, essentially, an emergency Measure—at least, I am supporting it on that understanding. If I were asked to support a system which extended the method of subsidy to all kinds of houses, local authority and private enterprise alike, I should oppose it, as a permanent Measure. Fortunately, we have been reminded of the experience we had at the end of the last war, when it was amply demonstrated that the extension of the subsidy to housing in general had the direct result of increasing the price of houses and reducing the output. With that experience in mind I declare that unless this were only a temporary Measure I would not be supporting it.
Incidentally, the Reports which we have had from the Central Advisory Committee have been very interesting. Three have already been produced and a fourth is coming. They are a striking tribute to the foresight of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, who reconstituted the Central Advisory Council and who was responsible for the setting up of four sub-committees. They cover the whole area of Scottish housing. I hope that the extension of the subsidy to housing in general will be for as short a time as possible, because I want housing to be as cheap as can be. My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) made a very important point in the previous Debate, to which I should like to make reference. She said that an essential part of the Measure was the problem of cost, which involved the problem of the cost of production. It is somewhat regrettable that no representative of the Ministry of Works has been present to-day, except for a very short time, and that the hon. Lady who replied for the Ministry of Health had to say she was sorry she could not deal with costs as that was the business of her Noble Friend. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not fob us off with the same story. We must consider the cost of production in relation to a Measure of this kind. We are being invited to pass a Bill which will involve this House and the taxpayers in the expenditure of great sums of money; what sums, no one knows, or what possible expenditure, as nobody has ventured to estimate it. This is an extraordinary situation.
I recognise that it is not possible, on 18th July, 1944, to lay down what costs may be next year, but it is only right and just that the Government should answer this day one or two questions addressed to them on this essential matter of costs. I would therefore ask my right hon. Friend to tell me what steps the Scottish Office are taking to consider, for example, the provision of housing material at reasonably cheap prices. What organisation is already set up in order to produce, in vast quantities, and factory made, the fittings for the houses? What has been done? I want to know. We ought to know. It is essential to speed up and cheapen the cost of production. Are the Government reflecting upon the present war-time conditions in respect of building labour? Are they quite satisfied that the

output during the war will be adequate in the post-war period? The cost of labour in total building costs is of enormous importance. I ask the Government whether they are considering that point. There are many people who believe that the basis of output upon which the present labour Regulations are constructed is wrong. I trust they will let us have an answer, so that we can see whether they are really considering that problem.
Have the Government considered, and what conclusions have they reached about, the prefabricated type of house? The Bill does not say that it relates necessarily to brick-and-mortar houses. There are forms of prefabricated houses which might do very well in some parts of Scotland. A previous speaker mentioned the possibility of timber houses; there are timber houses in my constituency of East Fife which have been up for a great number of years. The people in them are very happy, and the sanitary authorities have no complaint. What about alternative methods? Are they being considered? I invite my right hon. Friend to answer that question.
If I may refer again to her excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey seemed to indicate that one of the best ways to get houses built quickly in adequate numbers was to remove control. I recognise that some essential controls must be continued after the war, but my own view is that the sooner we can decontrol the materials and labour involved in house building the sooner shall we speed up building production in Scotland. I am satisfied that the sooner we release the central grip of Whitehall upon bricks, cement, timber and the other things that go to make a house, the more quickly shall we get the houses built. The sooner we can release the manacle grip upon labour, the sooner will the interprise of local authorities and of private persons be encouraged and houses be built.

Mr. Buchanan: Would the hon. Member say that that course of action would be a great success in Scotland, particularly as, in pre-war years, when there were no controls and everything was free, the housing record was deplorable?

Mr. Stewart: There is always truth in what my hon. Friend says, and there


is truth in what he says now; but I think he will agree that there is truth in what I say. My contention is that the present method, by which the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Labour—not the Secretary of State for Scotland—control the two vital elements in house building, is not suitable to the quick provision of houses in Scotland. That is my contention, and I say the sooner that that central Whitehall control is released, the sooner we shall get houses cheaply and quickly in Scotland.
May I say just one word about condemned houses, to which my right hon. Friend referred, and which were the subject of considerable discussion earlier? I can only give the House my own experiences in the part of the world I represent. I am, and I hope I always shall be, the last to do anything that seems to tend towards lowering the standard of housing, but I could describe conditions in the East of Fife—not in cities but the lovely rural East of Fife, conditions in which ploughmen are living, which would shock the House. Time after time ploughmen and their wives have approached me, and have approached the Department, seeking to leave their farm, not because of the farmer or the conditions of work, but because of the awful house in which the wife and family had to live. There were other houses near by. I think of one village not far from me, composed of just a few houses, nearly all of them technically condemned, but all better houses than some in which these men are living. I have appealed to the Department, I am glad to say successfully, to give the local authority power to re-open and improve some of these hitherto condemned houses, as a temporary emergency measure, to help these poor families to get better accommodation.

Mr. Sloan: Is it not a fact these condemned houses were condemned by the local authority as unfit for human habitation?

Mr. Stewart: May I plead the case of my own people? I beg the House to stop theorising and face the facts of life. If I could take my hon. Friend over there to one ploughman's house in particular, of which I am now thinking, a shocking, appalling place, and then take him to look at the other house into which I have

been instrumental in getting him transferred, he would see that at least the other house is dry, at least it is clean, at least it keeps out the rain. It is technically condemned, but that man and his family thank God they have a better house to live in. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on giving his Department authority to make that special provision. So long as the shortage continues in Fife, I hope he will see that that special concession goes on; otherwise men and women will be condemned to live under conditions which are not justified at this time.
I have only one other word to say and that is in regard to the Special Housing Association. I would like the Under-Secretary, when he replies, to tell us a little more about this Association. One would like to know a good deal more about it. It was set up as a part of the Special Areas measures. I have never heard that it has done anything very spectacular. The fact that it is not profit-making does not necessarily commend itself to me at all. The criterion of that or any other body is: Does it do the job? Does it produce houses? I am not aware that it has done very much in that direction in the past. I must say that I do not think that the addition of these somewhat eminent members necessarily makes it a very admirable body in the view of the local authorities I represent. I ask, what contribution will that body make to our housing needs? I do not know the answer yet. We are being invited here to contribute large sums of money to that body, and I think we are entitled to know a good deal more about its works, its prospects, its background, its capacity, its technical equipment, than we know at the present time. If the Under-Secretary would deal with that in his reply I should be very happy.
I, gladly, on this occasion support the Second Reading of this Bill as a temporary Measure. I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. It is an unfortunate necessity, and as such it has my support.

Mr. McLean Watson: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) has spoken for one part of Fife. I want to speak for another part, Dunfermline Burghs. I welcome the Measure which is before the House as a first step to getting house-building restarted. It


has been stopped during the period of the war, and we all want to see it started as early as possible. We recognise that without a Measure of this kind we cannot get local authorities started to build houses for the working classes, as they are called. The hon. Member for East Fife has been telling us of housing conditions in the rural areas of Fife. I represent a group of burghs, and the conditions in some of them are just as bad as anything the hon. Member has in the East of Fife. There is a housing problem which is not confined to cities or the industrial areas. It is as widespread in the rural areas as in the urban areas.
I am pleased that the subsidy is to be extended and continued, because I do not see any possibility of houses being built for workers without the aid of a Government subsidy. I do not see how houses can at present be built and let at economic rents without a Government subsidy. I am pleased that in the Bill which is now before the House, apart from the sections who have previously enjoyed the subsidy, it is to be extended to the general housing position, that is so far as local authorities can erect houses. If the conditions in some parts of East Fife are as bad as my hon. Friend has described them, there were certainly opportunities before the war for providing better houses for agricultural workers, because in the Measure now before us, or in the Financial Memorandum, we are reminded that agricultural workers and persons in a similar economic position, could enjoy the subsidy prior to the war. A great deal more could have been done by private enterprise. As far as agricultural workers were concerned, private enterprise had its opportunity then, and there was no need for such conditions existing in East Fife or West Fife or anywhere else, if private enterprise had been as enterprising as we are sometimes led to believe it is. We are told that all private enterprise requires is opportunity and they are willing to take advantage of the opportunity. But the opportunity was there before the war, not only to build, but to recondition, agricultural houses.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: A great deal was done, as my hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Watson: I am perfectly willing to admit that a good deal was done. It is because I know that a good deal was done, that I am making reference to the

fact that, before the war, the housing position of the agricultural workers could have been improved.
In my constituency, I have raised this matter over and over again. There is one mining burgh where a considerable amount of damage has been done by underground workings, and housing conditions there have been very bad for years past. Recently when my right hon. Friend had some 2,000 houses to dispose of, we were fortunate enough in that burgh to get an allocation of 20 out of the last 1,000 up for allocation. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the erection of these 20 houses will be very welcome in that area. I hope that, before long, we may get an opportunity of a much bigger scheme, and I am certain that all the burghs in my constituency —I have one large burgh and three small burghs—will all be very anxious, as soon as opportunity offers, to get into the mortar tub and get houses built. We require houses in all the burghs, especially in the mining burgh of Cowdenbeath. The story my right hon. Friend told us to-day with regard to the 2,000 houses ought to act as a warning to us that we should get busy now before the end of the war to get the land prepared. He had to confess that very few of the first 1,000 houses have yet been completed. I think he said that over 800 of the first 1,000 had been begun. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He said that tenders had been received for them only.

Mr. Stewart: For the second 1,000.

Mr. Watson: I am not clear what the position about the first 1,000 is. I do not know how many have been built, or whether any have been completed; how many have been roofed over, and how many others have been tendered for. I am not clear whether it is in connection with the first 1,000, or the second 1,000 that my right hon. Friend had to turn down the tenders that were received.

Mr. Johnston: The first 1,000.

Mr. Watson: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Under-,Secretary can tell us if the tenders for the second 1,000 are any more favourable for successful house-building than the tenders for the first 1,000 were. The hon. Member for East Fife referred to alternative building materials. It is possible that even the


permanent houses that we are looking forward to may have to be built of some materials other than brick and cement. I do not know whether the steel house is going to be any more popular after this war, than it was after the last war; but Lord Weir is busy constructing what is supposed to be the last word in steel houses, and perhaps that type may be considered for permanent houses. If it has all the qualities that are being advertised, there is no reason why it should not. If it is more quickly constructed than, and as durable as, a brick and cement house, there is no reason why the mere fact that it is a steel house should prejudice its consideration as a permanent house.
I express no opinion on it, because I have not seen the new house yet, although I hope to see it in the next few days. But I have no prejudice against it because of the materials. What would weigh with me mainly would be the speed with which permanent houses could be constructed. It is true that the building trades want to concentrate on permanent houses. That may be all very well, but there is such an urgent housing problem in Scotland that we cannot wait until the building trade workers can give us the number of permanent houses required, if they are to be of the ordinary type, built of brick and cement. Certainly there would be no chance of getting the 50,000 permanent houses that the Secretary of State seems to have made up his mind about, unless we accept, in addition, houses of another type of construction, whether timber or steel or something else. I said in the Debate on the Scottish Estimates that I would prefer to see all houses built of stone. I do not think that there is anything better than a good stone house, but stone-built houses are out of the question in present circumstances. They may be all right when we have plenty of time to build, and are looking for opportunities of using the labour that is available. At the moment, our problem is to get hundreds of thousands of houses as speedily as possible, with the labour and materials that are now available. My right hon. Friend's experience of the 2,000 houses that he allocated in Scotland some time ago, should be a warning to us not to expect very rapid progress if the houses are to be of the ordinary permanent type.
This Measure will get a speedy passage through the House, because we all want to see the local authorities armed with powers to go ahead and to have plans ready when the labour and the materials are available. It is unfortunate that we have not more time to discuss housing in Scotland; but I wish to welcome this Measure, which extends the provisions that are now confined to agricultural workers and to purposes connected with overcrowding and slum clearance, to general housing plans. We do not require to go to the slums, to the overcrowded areas, or to the agricultural areas to find an urgent need for new houses. I hope that, as speedily as the right hon. Gentleman can get his machinery to work, he will encourage the local authorities, by every means in his power, to go ahead with their plans, so that when the labour and materials are available, we shall not be long in getting the permanent houses that are required.

Captain W. T. Shaw: I welcome the Bill, but I regret to learn, from the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that there are so few houses in prospect under the Bill. He mentioned that 800 out of the first 1,000 may be expected in the not distant future. As for the second 1,000, I am reminded of the text:
In my Father's house are many mansions;… I go to prepare a place for you.
I doubt whether many people now living will be able to live in this second 1,000 houses.

Mr. Sloan: There will be a mansion in the skies for them.

Captain Shaw: But the mansions in the skies are not habitable and steel houses are much better. I want mansions for people in my constituency now. I was particularly surprised when the right hon. Gentleman said that the labour was available. Yesterday, I asked a question about the hydro-electric power scheme, and pointed out that on 10th September, 1941, the Minister said that there would be neither the materials nor the labour available for it during the war. Yesterday he assured me that there would be plenty of labour and materials for these schemes during the war. I want to urge upon him that the housing problem in Scotland has a prior claim to all


the labour and materials that can be used, and that we want to get the houses before we allow ourselves to be attracted to larger schemes. We have got to solve this problem before we start on other schemes.

Mr. Buchanan: Nearly everybody in Scotland welcomes any proposal about housing. In fact, we are getting to the stage that we welcome almost any kind of Measure on these lines. I would say to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) that I blame him for what he said about the ploughman's miserable place and the other thing. He should not brag about it. It is a shameful thing to say that all they can do in Scotland is to transfer one workman from a terribly bad condemned place to a slightly better place.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: My hon. Friend is doing me an injustice. I never said that it was the only thing they could do. I asked that these small but essential contributions to the needs of the time should be maintained.

Mr. Buchanan: It is a sad thing, a terribly sad thing, that, in Scotland, an hon. Member should be pleading in that way in 1944. What a sad commentary on our affairs that my hon. Friend should be pleading for a man to be transferred from a condemned cottage to another cottage only slightly better. The right hon. Gentleman for Edinburgh East (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who opened the Debate from this side of the House, sometimes makes me wish that he knew certain parts of Scotland as well as some of us do. He said that bombs had destroyed houses in Southern England, while we were not in that position. I would say to him that, in certain parts of Scotland, from which some of us come, we are faced with the position that the houses are tumbling down without bombs. I have conducted a correspondence with the Minister—and the City of Glasgow has also done so—in which it has been pointed out that houses are being condemned almost month by month under the most difficult conditions, to be pulled down now. They are too dangerous to live in. That is the position now in our cities. It is urgent; it is almost desperate. The Government are being driven to certain measures and some of us wonder whether these are the proper measures to take.
The hon. Member for East Fife continued a practice which is growing up in Parliament, and which I think is quite wrong. I am surprised that a good Parliamentarian like my hon. Friend should continue it. He always condemns the Minister who is not here. It is becoming a regular method of argument to blame a Minister who is absent. If the Minister responsible be the Minister of Labour, as the hon. Member for East Fife said, the Secretary of State for Scotland must share his responsibility. It is no use trying to dodge it because he has friends here on the spot. It is not done and it is not decent. If my right hon. Friend had been sitting here and somebody else had been sitting on the other side when that record of the 800 houses not yet completed was mentioned, I venture to say that nobody Would have been so strong in his condemnation as my right hon. Friend. He would have poured criticism on it strongly. I say frankly that this idea, from Dumfriesshire, is being used as camouflage. If there are people who are tendering too high, deal with them, but do not make that an excuse for not providing houses when you have the Parliamentary powers. It is not fair. How sad to tell a thousand people in Scotland we are building a thousand houses for them—a miserable and mean number, it is true—and, then after all that, to give them the answer that even this number has never been completed yet. To say that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not to share that responsibility with another Minister, because we are supposed to be friendly, and all supposed to be kicking the ball the same way, is not fair.
I have no conception when the second thousand will be completed. But we have to sit here silent for fear that we may offend somebody. It is really a shame. We are discussing a Measure that makes for some kind of improvement in one or two aspects, and in the acquiring of land without a public inquiry. We are always told—and nobody knows this better than the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland—that land was not the stumbling block. If it is not the stumbling block, there is not much in it. I welcome the provision for the more rapid acquisition of land. The facts are that the housing position in Scotland beggars description. In 1931–32–33, the Government did not build the houses, yet they had freedom in every


way. Just imagine, in Glasgow the highest total ever reached was round about 1929 or 1930, and the figure was something like 7,000 or 8,000 a year. Indeed, in the years before the war, the figure was as low as 3,000 houses. That was the position when there was freedom from control, and that is the position we are looking forward to now.
I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to stop appointing committees and delegating the matter to committees. I am sick to death of this position. Whenever we are up against a problem, the right hon. Gentleman appoints a committee. Committee members do not build houses. The Secretary of State has announced the names of two or three new members to-day. There have been members on that body for years, who have hardly ever attended a meeting, or bothered about the Scottish housing position. My right hon. Friend knows it, and I can name them if I am challenged. They are people, on this body, who are taking not the slightest interest in our Scottish housing position. I am sitting on an Inter-Departmental Committee, where my English colleagues, whatever may be their differences from us—and they are terribly marked—are at least in agreement about the needs of Scotland in regard to housing. In Scotland some of the houses beggar description. I want us to reach the stage when we shall stop theorising about Scotland and do something practical.
I say, in support of my hon. Friend, —and I ought to make this public declaration as an article of faith—that I am not going to be driven, as I was before the years of the war, into what I thought was a general conspiracy on the housing problem. This general conspiracy, as I saw it, was between the Government, the local authorities, the employers, and, if you like, the trades unions always keeping the housing problem as a sort of dripping roast. After the question of unemployment had been dragged in, they wanted to return to the question of housing, with the local authorities and the Government constantly afraid to face up to the position. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) tried for years—I do not know how long it took him—before he ultimately got a small

concession for the improvement of apprentices. That is the sort of situation with which we are faced. Human needs and desires are so strong to-day and so urgent and overwhelming that I refuse to agree to allow these people to live under conditions imposed by any particular section or interest that may come along.
I do not say that the last words in housing are stone and lime. From the wooden ships was evolved the iron ship, and after iron came the use of steel, and on Clydebank there was nothing in the old wooden ship which could equal the modern steel ship in design and capacity. If there could be evolution in regard to the ship, there can be evolution in housing. Whatever else the Scottish Office ought to do, they ought to go to the Cabinet now and say that something ought to be done. I say that to them with all seriousness as the position is so appalling. Housing has got to such a state in British politics that it stands out from almost every other domestic problem. The secretary of the Labour Party, in giving evidence in Edinburgh about housing in the City of Glasgow, said that conditions in the other towns were also shockingly bad, the only difference being that in Glasgow they leered at you. The right hon. Gentleman should go to the Cabinet and demand that extra measures should be taken to start house building now, and not merely in stone.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) put two or three questions in this House the other week about the closing down of certain steelworks in his district, and if a steelworks is closed down in Lanarkshire it affects other areas outwith that area. The men were worried. Why should not such firms supply the steel for the construction of houses? The great American Army who came here were accommodated with huts and equipment miles ahead of the accommodation provided for many of the people in the City of Glasgow, and, in fact, people in Clydebank would welcome such accommodation. Are not the requirements of the wives of our men in the Army as urgent as those of the men of the American Army? Hon. Members receive a terrible number of letters from men in the Army, often asking for compassionate leave because of the terrible conditions of their families at home. These men are not "funkers" or cowards, but they are worried about


their families. If we want to give them a decent morale, something more than this Measure should be contemplated. I only regard it as a piece of machinery. I almost express hatred of the conditions prevailing in my native country and I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, on this issue, to make it a first duty, in these most terrible and exceptional circumstances, to ask the War Cabinet to do something for Scotland, and that something should be done to get on with housing now and try to make Scotland a better country than many of us have known in the past.

Commander Galbraith: I feel that every Member of the House who has listened to the eloquent plea just made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will feel very much in agreement with him on this grievous subject. Every one of us is distressed at the housing conditions that exist in Scotland to-day. We get letters every day which distress us, and while I feel that everything possible should be done, I do indeed, even though it is only a little thing, welcome the Bill which is before us. I welcome the extension of the subsidy to these houses which are to meet the general need, and I welcome its extension to the Housing Association, and I wish that the right hon. Gentleman could have told us that it was also to be extended to private enterprise. I have said in this House before, that I do not think we shall ever cope with the housing situation in Scotland until we can get every agency that can build houses assisting with the job. I will only refer briefly to one set of remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Gorbals. He pointed out the desperate situation that existed in the production of houses in the years before the war, and the reason for that is not far to seek. There was only one agency for building houses—the local authorities. I say that the sooner we can reinforce them with other agencies, the better for the housing of the people of Scotland.

Mrs. Hardie: Will my hon. and gallant Friend allow me to interrupt? It is nonsense to say that private enterprise was not allowed to build houses before the war. No one prevented private enterprise from building houses.

Commander Galbraith: The economic conditions, the rating position and the Rent Restrictions Acts were absolute deterrents to the building of houses by private enterprise in Scotland. The hon. Lady knows how different the situation was in England from that existing in Scotland.

Mr. Sloan: How do new houses come under the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Commander Galbraith: I wish to refer to one point contained in Clause 2 of the Bill, which allows the Secretary of State discretion in the matter of holding a public inquiry where objections have been lodged, and that for a period of two years. It seems to me that in certain circumstances a public inquiry can be beneficial. However, before I go on with that point, I would like to refer to the Explanatory Memorandum which draws attention to the fact that similar power was given at the end of the last war. There is no comparison whatsoever between the position which existed then and the position that exists now. At that time the local authorities had no land whatsoever. To-day they have land which enables them, by the end of this year, to build 100,000 houses. My right hon. Friend told us that we were only to expect at the outside—if we got more, so much the better—50,000 houses in the first two years. So that we seem to have, in total, enough land for a four-years' programme, or something very near it. In these circurnstances I cannot understand why it should be necessary to do away with the local public inquiry which, according to the Minister of Health, would save from two to four months and, according to my right hon. Friend, a maximum of about six months. In this connection I would like to draw the attention of the House to the remarks made in the course of the Debate on the Town and Country Planning Bill by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, which I presume really are a statement of Government policy. This is what he said:
I now come to the question of the public local inquiry. … It is absolutely essential to avoid unfairness or the appearance of highhanded action. … After all, people have a great deal of local patriotism. Are we not entitled to have some idea of what the local authority proposes to do with the land it is acquiring? Is there any Member in this House who really desires that a local authority shall


be in general empowered to acquire land, without disclosing publicly to anybody any of its intentions, merely by approaching the Minister and getting his consent? "[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1687–8.]
I feel that a public local inquiry serves a very useful purpose. It enables the people of the locality to be informed of what the local authority proposes to do. I know of cases where the intervention of outside persons has been much to the advantage of towns in Scotland and particularly my own city. I hope, therefore, that this public local inquiry will be held, save in exceptional cases where the Minister considers it is not absolutely essential or desirable. Where the local authority has land on which it can go ahead with the programme, then I believe that the public inquiry should be held.
Those are the only two points to which I wish to allude. However, I would like to ask my right hon. Friend who is to reply whether it is the intention of the Government to go ahead with legislation at a later date to provide a subsidy for private enterprise in the building of houses, as was promised by the Minister of Health in connection with the English Bill to-day. Is it the intention that we shall have a similar Bill for Scotland? Let me end by saying once more that I hope my right hon. Friend will use the local inquiry wherever possible.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: It will not have escaped the attention of the House that only my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has so far spoken to the Bill. That, to me, is not without significance, because it seemed to me when I read this Bill that there was not so very much in it. It is a very small Measure. I am not going to suggest that the Government should have published some other kind of document that would miraculously produce ever so many houses for the people in a relatively short time, but it occurred to me, when my right hon. Friend was introducing this Measure, that he, too, had very little to say in commendation of it. A good part of his speech was devoted to dealing with the situation at large and to matters that fell outside the scope of this particular Bill. The very small points with which it deals of course commend themselves to all of us, or at least very nearly all of us; even my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals

(Mr. Buchanan) said that he appreciated and welcomed the little concession given in the Bill, and the little assistance it would give to the local authorities in the provision of new houses.
I wonder, however, how much encouragement the Bill will give to the local authorities. The Secretary of State told us that very soon now the local authorities will have acquired sufficient land for the erection of 100,000 houses. At the same time we are informed that in the first two years after we start building houses in Scotland we are expected to build something like 50,000 houses, so that we already have, or very soon shall have, land for twice as many houses as it is our intention to build in the first two years. That being so, if that acquired land is properly apportioned, there would not seem to be very much in the compulsory acquisition of land, that is, without public inquiry. It may be, of course, that the land required by the local authorities is not adequately or properly apportioned and that in some areas it will be very necessary to acquire land speedily and without resort to the public inquiry.
In the earlier Debate to-clay reference was made to the extent of the subsidy, and fear was expressed that if it were not sufficient the housing of the people at rates they could pay will become very near to impossible. Reference was also made to the fact that it has been our experience that the bigger the subsidy, generally speaking, the higher the cost of production. That being so, it would seem to me to be very unwise for the Secretary of State and the Government to take the advice of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), who said that controls should all be removed at the earliest possible moment and that private enterprise should be allowed its head in order to get on with the building of houses.
We have read in one of these publications by the Central Advisory Committee that in 1921–22 the cost of building houses, on the average, dropped from £830 to £494 That was at the same time as the subsidy was removed. The subsidy of £240 per house was taken off and the cost of production fell, at the same time, by about £340. There must be a reason for that, and we ought to be told what is the reason. I am not suggesting for one moment that in the absence of a suitable


reply we should not have any subsidy. Obviously we must have a subsidy, but it must not be the means of putting public money into the possession of people engaged in private enterprise or building for local authorities. In my view private enterprise has always done very well out of house-building, whether it has engaged in it in a speculative manner or for local authorities. It seems to me, therefore, that the Secretary of State must continue to have some control, by some means or other, over costs, and he must see to it that in the period immediately following the war, when great efforts will be made to rehouse our people and provide accommodation for our returning Servicemen, building contractors, or any other section interested in house-building, will not be able to cash-in on the distressing needs of our people.
The Secretary of State made reference to the provision in the Bill for encouraging and assisting the special Housing Association. He told us of the good work they had done and how they had enabled him and the Government to break the "rings" in the building industry, to cut through the obstacles to building that were being placed before local authorities by contractors who joined together and imposed too high costs. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us, when he replies, how the Association broke the ring. Where did they get labour and materials? Did they bring in contractors from other areas? We would like to know what happened. In the period immediately following the war it should be easy to get all our labour resources utilised for the purpose of house-building. We should not have all this playing about with prices, trying to get a contractor to build houses and then, if he is a member of the "ring" and his price is too big, getting another contractor to do the job. We cannot have efficiency in the industry so long as that sort of thing is tolerated. We shall have duplication and triplication of overheads. If a contractor stands idle because his price is too high his overheads have to be paid all that time, so that if he does re-engage in house-building somebody has to pay for the time when he was making no profit.
I do not know whether my experience is general, but I find that the Special Housing Association have been engaged in the production of an alternative type

of housing for local authorities. In Lanarkshire the Association built houses which stand out as something quite different. I am not objecting, but I wonder whether the Association will be used to get around local authorities' objections, or objections by this House, to houses that they would not want. I think particularly of the Portal house. I do not wish to condemn that house now, but since the Special Housing Association have, in the past, mainly built timber houses they may, in the immediate period after the war, have to revert to building steel houses in the absence of sufficient timber. That may be all very well, but I am one of those who are not very much taken up with steel houses. I am, perhaps, a bit old-fashioned, and maybe ought not to be. I can not only say that I have seen bad housing conditions, as so many Members have said, but I myself have lived in horrible housing conditions, and that does not make me any more ready to accept the Portal house, or any other type of steel house, as a substitute for a house, because it is only a substitute for a house. I have often heard Members say that they would be pleased to live in that sort of house. It is not true. I question whether there is one Member who would choose a Portal house for his own dwelling.

Mr. Buchanan: I certainly would not take a Portal house, but there are steel houses which I would prefer to the stone tenement I live in.

Mr. Fraser: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. A steel house, or a Portal house, would probably be preferable to the housing conditions of many people, but the point is that many hon. Members when expatiating on the Portal house try to make us believe that it is a very enviable abode. It is not. It is only something that we have to put up with for the time being. I recall, however, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) warned us in the last Debate on Scottish housing that the Portal house would not merely be a temporary house but would become a sort of semi-permanent house, because of the time it took to overcome our needs and the delay in house building during the war. I should hope that the Special Housing Association will not be used to hurry the production


of traditional type houses. I appreciate that, in the main, local authorities will be expected to use the subsidies to go ahead building the traditional type houses. They will not be timber or steel houses. They will be building houses of brick and lime. I should hope that the Special Housing Association will not be taking advantage of a very similar subsidy to provide something that the local authorities would not wish to provide.
I cannot take any objection to the Measure. All its provisions seem to me to be very necessary and, if I do not believe that the local authorities are waiting for this sort of provision, or will be enthused at the passage of the Bill, neither do I believe that the people who are so much in need of houses will be enthused. But I hope it will be the forerunner of other Measures to see that the total resources of the building trade are applied to the production of houses at the earliest moment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I doubt whether the House fully appreciates the position before us in Scotland. I have heard no reference, for instance, to the very grave warning that the Secretary of State gave. He said he hoped we should get the figures that he mentioned, the 100,000 in the first postwar year and the 300,000 by the end of the second, but he did not believe we should—these small figures which the English Minister of Health was heavily criticised for bringing forward. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with all the authority of the Government in the presence of the Minister of Labour and the representative of the Office of Works. The Bill is a piece of machinery—not perhaps a very important piece—which says, "You have not been able to supply houses for the slum dwellers, you have not been able to supply houses for the agricultural workers, you have not been able to supply houses to supplement those which are overcrowded. We shall however give you, in addition, permission to supply houses for a class which has not yet been brought in." That is to say, there are not enough houses being produced, but the subsidy shall be extended to another class which has not yet been dealt with at all.
For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

It is a piece of machinery of very shadowy benefit to its hypothetical beneficiaries. I am not sure whether it is a good thing to do. It is a tidy thing to do, but whether it will have the effect of restricting the provision of houses for the classes most urgently in need of them I should not like to say. We are all so very willing to provide houses in the abstract, yet, when concrete proposals are brought forward, we are all so terribly critical of them. The Secretary of State had only to mention that the shipyard workers had suggested building houses for themselves in their spare time for the benches to seethe with people getting up——

Mr. Buchanan: That is nonsense.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It may be nonsense, but it is the way the Russians, in their blitzed towns, are providing themselves with houses. The poet Burns was born in a house built by his father in his spare time. The idea that no one can do anything except by following out re cognised methods may be right or wrong.

Mr. Sloan: Do not believe that at all. The Prime Minister——

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: At any rate, there is at least one righteous man in the city, and the city was saved from destruction because there was one righteous man amongst them.

Mr. Sloan: I am afraid the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Biblical history is entirely wrong. The city was destroyed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That was because the righteous people were allowed to leave the city. We cannot get away from our cities. If people could leave Glasgow and go to places where there is plenty of accommodation, that is all very well. The Lord was not going to destroy the city if Lot was in it. He was willing to let Lot get out and then destroy it. Surely the hon. Member's knowledge is not so far at sea that he would suggest that the Lord would destroy the city if Lot had not been able to get away from it. We are cabined, cribbed and confined within the limits of Scottish housing conditions. Ninety-nine per cent. of the people have to go on living there. Every line ought to be tried.


We tried steel houses long ago. From every corner of the House there came criticism and the suggestion that this was not the way to approach the matter and it was not the right thing to do. They all preferred bricks and mortar, and the great experiment was brought to an end. If we had had 20 years' more experience of these methods we should have been far ahead with steel houses, and with stone and lime houses too. The steel house can always beat the first tender for a brick house, but not the second. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) gave figures for Glasgow. He said 7,000 houses were built in one year and it had fallen to 3,000 in the year before the war. But the year when 7,000 houses were built was the year when we were putting up steel houses. The situation was so serious that something had to be done about it and builders produced brick and mortar houses, Unless the problem is approached from several angles nothing will happen.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) said we ought to organise the whole thing and bring it forward in one general line of advance, everyone being employed all the time. It may be, but that is not the way that houses were produced in Scotland. The Secretary of State warned us that we shall not get enough labour and materials to build even the meagre numbers suggested here. More meagre figures were produced a quarter of a century ago, after the last war, when hundreds, not thousands, were produced in the first year and 20 or 30 houses in the whole of England, Scotland and Wales in the second year of the war. That may be a much nearer figure than this figure of 100,000, which is a paper figure, or the 300,000, which is another paper figure. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton says, "I have been reading the Paper put out by the Housing Committee and I find the price of houses fell in one year from £800 to £400, I wonder what was the reason for that and whether it was a sudden attack on building contractors' profits," I would point out that that was the year of deflation, the slump and the crash, when everything fell. Ask anybody in industry or any employed person whether there was not a terrific crash in those years, when the great slump hit Great Britain and unemployment went bounding up by a million at a time. Naturally, we

got a drop in the price of houses. But that is not the sort of drop to which we are looking forward. It is the sort of drop which the Government are pledged to the hilt against.
We cannot look forward to that to get us out of the difficulty. Unless we are willing to try everything and take new lines of approach, including the steel house and the Special Housing Association, we shall certainly not get out of the difficulty in which we are now. The hon. Member for Hamilton said he hoped the Special Housing Association would not be used for introducing special types of houses like steel houses. I hope that it will be so used. It has got to be so used. Somebody has got to take the initiative. From my experience of local authorities, that is the last thing that any housing committee would put through, and the last thing any corporation would pass even if the housing committee put it up. Of all cautious, conservative, reactionary bodies, commend me to great masses of men gathered together in publicly elected corporations. The convenor of a housing committee has a hundred people to fear if he brings forward a new proposal. If one is brought forward, it will be sent to one sub-committee after another, who will report on it and bring it back again, and all the time the housing shortage is going on.

Mr. Buchanan: That is the method they adopt here.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I have seen great things done by small committees composed of people who were willing to take responsibility. I hope very much that the Special Housing Association will be able to go forward and take the responsibility for the steel house just as an earlier special organisation had the courage to do. It was turned down by every local authority, but it was put into action by this special organisation. There are many families in Scotland who are living in a great deal more comfort than if the steel house had not been there. If the experiment had not been stopped we would have been much further in housing in Scotland than we are to-day.

Mr. Fraser: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend arguing that even though the local authorities should object to the steel house being introduced into their areas, the Housing Association should be enabled


to go in and put them up in defiance of the local authorities?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Without a doubt; if the housing authority is not housing the people. One talks as if the purpose of the housing authority was to be merely a housing authority. Its purpose is to supply houses to the people. If the housing authority, say, of the Corporation of Glasgow is not building enough houses for the folk in Glasgow and is turning down steel houses, I hope very much that the Housing Association will come in and build houses for the constituents of the hon. Member for Gorbals and for my constituents. I should back them with both hands, and I would get the support of my constituents, because they are not existing simply for the greater glory of the Housing Committee of the Corporation of Glasgow. They have ideas of their own for the reason for their existence which go far beyond that, and what they want is a house to live in. If the local authority is not carrying out this primary duty, and another public body has been set up by this House for the purpose of carrying out that primary duty and is being supplied with material to do it in the shape of the steel house, then, if it is not done, we shall be going to the Secretary of State night and day to ask him why he is not exercising the power that has been granted to him for housing the people. Surely the hon. Member for Hamilton and the hon. Member for Gorbals would say that. We are all so willing to postpone decisions on this and that and hope that somebody else takes the decisions.
I read letters from the Secretary of the Building Trade Association, Mr. Coppack, with whom I have worked and for whom I have a great admiration, asking. "What is all this about alternative methods of housing? Why do not the Government put the programme before the building trade and let them do it? "The Government have put it before the building trade. There is this modest programme of 100,000 houses in the first year and 300,000 by the end of the second year, and yet the Minister, in commending the Bill, said that he did not believe he would get them. That is a "show-down" if you like. On that show-down there is a serious situation confronting the country as a whole, and

a terribly serious situation confronting Scotland. This piece of machinery, although it is useful, does not go anything like far enough to grapple with the situation which is before us, and it will not be grappled with merely by the subsidy. It will have to be grappled with by great measures of organisation, by an increase of labour and of material, and, it may be, by some pretty firm handling of vested interests of all kinds.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that only he and one other Member had spoken to the Bill. I would remind him that on Second Reading it is allowed by Parliamentary practice not only to speak of everything that is in the Bill, but to speak of everything that is not in the Bill. For that reason I say that we must take this opportunity and every opportunity of driving home to the Secretary of State, and through him to the Government, that the measures which have been proposed for solving the housing situation in Scotland are not enough.

Mr. George Griffiths: Nor in England.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I leave England out of account. We have enough to do to remedy our own grievances in Scotland without remedying the grievances of England also. Of the 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 houses built in the years between the wars, far the greater number were built South of the Border. We in Scotland have not only the war shortage but the accumulated peace shortage to deal with, and the measures proposed are not enough. That ought to be the message of the House of Commons, and particularly of the Scottish Members, on the occasion of the Second Reading of a Scottish Housing Bill, to the Secretary of State and, through him, to the Government.

Mr. Sloan: I wonder whether the sort of speech to which we have just listened is the kind that has always been made in this House when the housing needs of Scotland have been brought to the front. If so, why do we find ourselves in such a deplorable condition in regard to housing? I welcome the Bill, so far as it goes—which is not very far. I am surprised that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was critical of extending the subsidy to general hous-


ing needs. It has been tragic that no provision has been made for people who did not come into the category of slum clearance cases or overcrowded cases and it has been very difficult to explain that situation to people who have been seeking houses. In my village, people have lived all their lifetime not in overcrowded places or in slum dwellings, but when houses have become vacant it has been difficult to explain to them that they could not have one, because they did not come into either of those categories. The very fact that the Bill will give local authorities the opportunity of providing for those people is a tremendous step forward, and to that extent I am sure we all welcome the Measure.
Some hard things have been said about housing in Scotland to-day and I do not think any Member is prepared to apologise for saying them, because the housing is in a very tragic state in Scotland. The surprising thing is that the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, who had some responsibility in the matter—indeed, a great share, because he has occupied responsible offices under the Crown, having been both Secretary of State for Scotland and Minister of Health, during the period when we might have made a good deal of progress in housing—has been out-Heroding Herod. He went to the length of saying that we should badger the Secretary of State on this matter day and night. I wish hon. Members of this House had badgered him, when he was Secretary of State. The probability is that Scotland would now be in a much better position.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Can the hon. Member name any occasion when he badgered me once for extra steel houses?

Mr. Sloan: I regret to say that the right hon. and gallant Member had been promoted—or demoted, I do not know which —and had become Minister of Health when I came to the House and I had not the opportunity of badgering him day and night.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Did the hon. Member ever write me a letter?

Mr. Sloan: My local authority, of which I was a member, wrote the letters and brought the pressure to bear upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, or my local Labour Party or the trade union of

which I was a member, would write the letters and badger him; but that did not provide the necessary houses for the Scottish people.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Let me say, then, as a matter of interest, that not on one occasion did I ever receive a representation from the local authority in question, or from any trade union of which my hon. Friend was a member, asking for any steel housing programme, or backing me up in getting an extra ounce of labour into the building trades in Scotland.

Mr. Sloan: I am quite sure that the right hon. and gallant Member did not, because we did not approve of the steel houses. We examined them. I thought we were wise in our rejection. I am sure that at that time we turned down the steel house—but what is the good of all this back-biting? What we have to do is to see that we get houses in the future. It is true that houses cannot be built without materials and labour. An hon. Member said in a previous Debate that if we had all the money, all the materials and all the land, we could not get houses unless we had the labour. This matter of labour has been made a tremendous excuse in the problem of housing. We have been led to believe that there has not been building labour because we had not the man-power, and I believed that, until the Debate upon the Scottish Estimates the other day, when the Under-Secretary of State told us that in the building industry in Scotland before the war, we had 108,000 building operatives. The highest total of houses we ever built in Scotland was 250,000. The average over the years would be much nearer 15,000. The proportion of building trade workers engaged in house-building in Scotland was probably one in five or in six. The others were building public-houses and cinemas. The figure has been given and accepted of one building operator per house per annum so, out of 108,000 building operatives, only some 15,000 or 20,000 were engaged in building houses in the land where housing conditions are among the worst in Europe.
I was intrigued by the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the generous Greenock shipyard workers coming forward and offering their services to form a guild to build houses in their


spare time. I am surprised that he made any such statement in public. I should very much like to know the record of those shipyard workers at their own job. I remember the shipyard workers in the Clyde demanding a 40-hour week. The Greenock workers are apparently willing to work their 45 or 48 hours, and then bring their tools and engage in the building trade in Scotland to house the people. What a hope. What an idea to promulgate, suggesting that the result will in any way help the building industry in the provision of houses in Scotland.
I am not critical of the attempt to short-circuit the acquisition of land. I know something of those difficulties in my local authority. Local authorities all over the country have had the same experience of the difficulty of securing sites and of countering the obstacles placed in their way by the people who hold the land. And if this proposal for the carrying out of a public inquiry will help in the acquisition of land, then it is all to the good and will help greatly in that provision of our houses.
I return to the question of building labour. Is building to be maintained under the Essential Work Order, or is there to be some method of control so that building workers will be compelled to stay in Scotland to build the houses required for the Scottish people? We see all the disastrous destruction that has taken place in England. We know that very many of these things that are being smashed now by bombs will have first priority to be rebuilt. I understand that a number of "pubs" have been bombed, and one of the first things to be done will be to build the "pubs," the cinemas, the churches, the banks. There will be a tremendous demand for building trade workers. Are they to be transferred from Scotland to England to rebuild England, before Scotland again has its share? The fact of the matter is that unless we do something very drastic in regard to the question of building, then we will not make the progress necessary.
I am not at all critical of the Housing Association. I cannot say I am very familiar with their operations or activities, but I know one thing; they have provided us with houses which we would not otherwise have had to-day, and if a stop had not been put to their operations we

would have a great many more houses. We had a scheme in the county of Ayr, laid out by the Housing Association, which would have been completed long ago if the war had not come about. It is quite true to say that the Housing Association would have provided us with houses which we have not got at the present time.
I do not know why the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) should be so insistent upon the cost of this scheme being laid down before we get started. That is obviously impossible. We do not know what the cost of building will be yet; it is quite certain it cannot be anything like what it was before the war. Standards have been raised, wages have gone up, and it is very unlikely—I hope it is very unlikely, I suppose it will be impossible—that wages will be reduced to anything like the standard at which they were before the war. Every increase in wages means an increase in building costs or cost of materials, which also has its reflection on building costs. Therefore it would be impossible to state even approximately the amount which would be required to house the people of Scotland at the present time. I think it is a wise thing not to name the subsidy. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health made a statement—I think she did it unwittingly—that if the cost of houses does not come down, the people will not be housed.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: That is true.

Mr. Sloan: I am very sorry to hear my hon. Friend say that. I thought he had delivered his peroration and that he was determined to have houses for the Scottish people, irrespective of the cost or anything else.

Mr. Stewart: The people will not get the houses if they cost anything like the present figure. That is my view.

Mr. Sloan: That is the hon. Member's view, but is it mine? My view is this: We did not stop the war because of the cost. We did not stop improving and making implements of war—the best bombers that could be produced, experiments with the tank, the production of the very best equipment we could send to the Army. We did not count the cost at all. We did not say "No, we are not going to do that because it would cost


too much money." The people of Scotland must be housed, irrespective of the cost, or irrespective of what it may take to build houses.
It is true we must do the best that is possible to see that there is no such thing as exploitation, such as took place after the last war, when the cost of a three-apartment house was £1,200. It is also true, as proved in the Green Paper here, that the higher the subsidy the greater the cost of the house. While it is not possible to obviate subsidies, I hope we are not going to embark on a scheme of subsidies for private enterprise to build houses to let at profit. I hope we are not going to grant subsidies, as we did after the last war, to provide employers of labour with tied houses that were their own particular property, from which they could remove miners if they left their employment. I hope we are not going to embark on a scheme of that kind, but now that this question of housing has been ventilated in this House, now we have got this Bill, now that the Secretary of State knows that all sections of the House demand houses, I hope no time will be lost in providing houses for those people of ours who are in such dire need.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): This Debate on housing, and the Second Reading of our short Scottish Bill, which after all is only an interim Bill dealing with our problem of housing, has re-emphasised the fact that, of all the social problems that we have to solve, in Scotland in particular, the outstanding one is that of providing decent housing for our people. The Bill, as I say, is a very short one, but it has provided an opportunity, rightly taken advantage of by hon. Members, to raise many points in connection with housing in Scotland. It has been pointed out by hon. Members that, with all the good will in the world, we cannot build houses unless we have the material and the labour which is necessary to deal with this great problem. It has also been emphasised that in Scotland there is a tremendous shortage of housing.
It was pointed out by the Secretary of State, in opening the Debate, and it has been emphasised by speaker after speaker, that we have a really grave shortage of housing in Scotland. The Committee of which I am chairman, which has given its advice to the Secretary of State for

Scotland, declared that our needs in Scotland were not less than 500,000 houses. Incidentally, one of its recommendations —and this seems to me to show that the legislation we are proposing is not just a shadowy legislation, as was suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—was that local authorities should have the right to acquire more speedily the land necessary for housing. That recommendation is contained in this short Measure, Another of the recommendations of that Committee, whose recommendations were unanimous, was that the subsidy for our municipal houses in Scotland should be extended to provide for building for the general needs of the population. Those two recommendations are given effect to in the Bill.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is this subsidy that is provided in the Bill to be a permanent measure, and not an emergency measure?

Mr. Westwood: I sincerely hope that if it is a matter of keeping down rents, and of building houses at rents which the working classes can pay, we shall not give up the subsidy. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) is not speaking for the 22 small burghs in Fife if he thinks that we can get on building houses for the people without subsidy.

Mr. Stewart: I am simply asking a question I understood, and I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) understood, that this was a temporary, emergency arrangement. Now my right hon. Friend is suggesting that it is a full-time, permanent Measure.

Mr. Westwood: I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I am suggesting that it is an interim Measure, dealing with housing. I never suggested that it was a permanent Measure. It is an interim Measure, dealing with particular problems, especially with the acquisition of land. I was coming to that, if I had not been interrupted. One of the reasons why we need the power to get rid of the public inquiry is that, before the year is over, we hope to have the land on which to build 100,000 houses. The Secretary of State gave figures showing the amount of land already acquired and of land that it is hoped to acquire in the very near future, and he concluded by saying that it is hoped to have land on which to build


100,000 houses, but that the ownership of land by local authorities in Scotland is unbalanced. There are authorities which have no land to meet their requirements, and there is no reason why they should have to go through the cumbrous procedure which is laid down in order to meet their requirements. Consequently, we are giving power to these authorities to acquire land more speedily, so that all our local authorities in Scotland shall have a minimum of two or three years' land in hand, in order to get on with building as soon as we have the labour and the materials. That is one of the main purposes of the Measure. A question was asked about the figures for the first two years in Scotland. The Secretary of State made it clear that the total housing target for Britain is 100,000 houses for the first year, and 200,000 for the second year, a total of 300,000 houses for Great Britain in the first two years after the war. Out of that number, the share which has been allocated to us is 20,000 for the first year, and 30,000 for the second year.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: My right hon. Friend has not quite answered the conundrum which I put. In the Preamble to the English Bill, the figures of 100,000 and 200,000 are for the local authorities only, but the Minister spoke of the 300,000 covering the whole production of housing. I should like that point cleared up.

Mr. Westwood: I can speak only for Scotland. I have not the privilege of replying to an English Debate on an English Bill. The 50,000 houses which are our share hare to be allocated to the local authorities in accordance with the plans which are made. I hope that I have answered my right hon. Friend's point. Another point that was raised is, Why are the costs higher in Scotland than in England? There are various reasons. I think that in some instances our houses are more substantially built. In connection with the roofs of the houses and the holding of the strengths, about double or treble the amount of wood is used. Also, lath and plaster are used in Scotland, whereas in England a straight plaster is used on the wall, without any lathing. That is one of the reasons why. this House has always realised that we had to get a higher subsidy for housing in Scotland than in England.
The hon. Member for East Fife also raised the question of the cost of houses to-day. There are various reasons why the costs are higher. To start with, the younger men have been taken out of the industry and only the older men are left. Consequently, the output is far lower. Then there are the increases in wages. There is also the increased cost of materials. All these things increase the cost of building at present. It was a slip on the part of the hon. Member for East Fife when he mixed up 1944 and 1844. Listening to some of his remarks after that slip, I felt sure that he was preaching the economics of 1844 and not the economics of 1944. He suggested, and I think he has suggested again by his interjection, that we have not to consider permanently continuing the subsidy.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The extension of the subsidy for general housing—that was my point.

Mr. Westwood: I cannot go into that at the moment, because I have no knowledge of any negotiations in Scotland for extending the subsidy other than to local authorities, or for continuing the subsidy other than to local authorities. The Committee of which I am chairman is inquiring into ways of encouraging owner-occupiership—it may be by subsidy, it may be by assistance in other ways; I do not know. In that way it will be possible to make houses available for those who are to buy and occupy them.

Major Lloyd: Are we likely to have to wait long for that Report?

Mr. Westwood: I cannot give a date when that Report will be available. They have had three or four meetings and they are energetically pursuing that particular matter with a view to bringing in their recommendations as speedily as possible.
It was likewise suggested by the hon. Member for East Fife that the sooner we got rid of controls the better. The hon. Member and the House must realise that no one asks for controls merely for the sake of control, but if the hon. Member is willing to go back to East Fife and argue, when people are in such desperate need for houses, or go to the Gorbals Division—from which I get a type of letter which, if one were not in earnest, would definitely make one so—and say that there must be no control, that all


the building workers have a right to go where they like in the first two years, sell their labour as they like and build pubs and cinemas rather than houses, I will be quite willing, as a Minister of the Crown, to follow him into his own constituency or any other for the purpose of putting the policy of the Government. [Interruption.] It is true that on one occasion the hon. Member did defeat me, but I am not sure that he could defeat me on the next. If we are to deal with this particular problem, we must have, for some period after the war, some control over labour, over materials and over costs, and I agree with what has been said by several hon. Members that no interests of any kind must be allowed to stand in the way of a solution of the housing problem in Scotland.
Several questions were asked about the Scottish Special Housing Association. Let me make it clear—and this is in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—that there is no association between the Special Housing Association referred to in the Bill before the House and the Second Scottish National Housing Company that was formed for the purpose of building the Weir steel housse. That is a separate organisation altogether, set up for that particular purpose, and it has no association with the Scottish Housing Association referred to in the Bill.
I would like to give just a few facts about the Special Housing Association, for which we are asking special powers in the Bill. Since it was set up in November, 1937, for the purpose of building houses only in special areas and with alternative materials, it has twice had its powers extended, first, to deal with other than special areas, and second, to build even with ordinary materials. Now these powers are extended in this Bill. Since the Association was set up, it has made not a bad contribution to housing in Scotland. It has built 2,094 houses, of which 2,028 have been completed since the outbreak of war. Of this 2,028, 284 are emergency houses of temporary construction. In 1943, the Association resumed the building of 300 houses in Airdrie, Coatbridge, Johnstone, Kilmarnock and Motherwell, of which 26 have been completed and the remainder are nearing completion. Some 206 of the houses have been built in brick and 94 in poured cellu-

lar concrete. The Association are at present constructing 600 emergency houses, built according to the Ministry of Works standard hut system—reinforced frames and maycrete blocks. They are being built in the burghs of Clydebank and Greenock and in the counties of Dunbarton and Lanark for war workers living in unsatisfactory conditions. The Association has also completed, for the Ministry of Aircraft Production, 18 houses in Edinburgh, begun by private enterprise, work on which was suspended on the outbreak of war. I could go on giving more details of the work they have done, but that is an indication of the fine work the Association have been doing, and is a reason why, in this Bill we are asking Parliament to extend their powers.
The question was asked, how they will break the "ring." They can do it in several ways—by employing their own direct labour, by bringing in new contractors and also by a standard type of plan. After all, we wasted a tremendous amount of time in the past by having plans for different authorities, even for different sites in the same local authority area. I have known months wasted, when we had a splendid plan, through local authorities arguing on the height of a window or the width of a door and some other small, infinitesimal things that all tend towards delay. Thu Association can, by the methods that lie to hand, check the costs above the ordinary contractors who are to be used by the local authorities for the building of these houses, and I am perfectly sure that that is one of the effective ways in which we have been able to deal with the problem in Scotland arising from the mounting costs of houses.
The third point is the offer of the building trades' workers in the Greenock area to form themselves into a guild to give their contribution to the solution of the housing problem of Greenock, and it is really a terrible problem. I think there is only one town which has a greater problem, taking the size of the place, and that is Clydebank itself. These two places have the greatest problem of all so far as blitzed conditions are concerned. Here are the numbers of the volunteers in the trade—49 electricians, 58 joiners, 38 plumbers. They are engaged in the meantime on the building of ships, and it was not a question of an offer by miners or agricultural labourers to build


houses, but an offer by skilled craftsmen to give what services they can, and it is surely worth accepting, even it they only build 10 houses a year.

Mr. Buchanan: It is just playing with this problem.

Mr. Westwood: There are seven carpenters and 19 labourers. Those are the trades and the numbers willing to give of their best, and I think we are entitled to take offers from any source from which they come to enable us to deal with this great problem.
The Bill is a very short Bill. It seeks to shorten the time for the acquisition of land, not so much necessary in the areas where we have got land for even a four or five years' housing programme, but for the many areas where they have no land. This will shorten the procedure and make it possible more speedily to take in hand the land necessary for a two or three years' housing programme. It will extend the subsidy to meet the general needs of the community instead of merely limiting it to those families who were overcrowded, and it will give these extended powers to the Special Housing Association. I sincerely hope that we are going to receive the unanimous support of the House for its Second Reading.

Question, "That the Bill be now read at Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.— [Captain McEwen.] Committee To-morrow.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order 69.

[Mr. McLEAN WATSON in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the making of contributions under Section one of the Housing Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1938, as respects new housing accommodation provided by local authorities before the first day of October nineteen hundred and forty-seven and to provide for grants and advances to the housing association approved for the purposes of Section two of the aforesaid Act, it is expedient:-

(a)to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of (i) any Increase in the sums payable out of such

moneys under Section three of the said Act of 1938 which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session removing as respects new housing accommodation provided as aforesaid, the limitation of contributions under the said Section one to certain classes of housing accommodation and (ii) the sums required for payment of grants to the said association in accordance with the said Act of the present Session;
(b) to authorise the Treasury to issue to the Secretary of State out of the Consolidated Fund such sums as are necessary to enable the Secretary of State to make advances to the said association in accordance with the said Act;
 (c) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing the sums to be issued under the last preceding paragraph, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939;
 (d)to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Secretary of State from the said association by way of interest or repayment;
 (e)to authorise the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund sums received under the last preceding paragraph, and to apply such sums in redemption or repayment of debt or, so far as they represent interest in payment of interest, otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. T. Johnston.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ARMED FORCES (COMPASSIONATE LEAVE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain McEwen. ]

Major C. S. Taylor: I want to draw attention to the question of the granting of compassionate leave from the Army. I have purposely made this a wide subject because I believe that there are a number of Members who, if there were time, would like to raise certain aspects of the case, but I want to put one particular case. I would like to draw attention to the Financial Secretary's statement in this House on 11th July, 1944, when, speaking on the Adjournment, he said:
The essential in considering compassionate applications is that each case must be treated on its merits, and it is not possible to lay down hard and fast rules of what should or should not be regarded as grounds for release." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1704.]
I understand that it is the usual practice in the Army to give compassionate


leave in the case of a man who had a business before the war but whose business looks as if it is going to break down for lack of someone to run it. He is given compassionate leave to make arrangements for somebody else to carry on his business for him, and he may be given a period of compassionate leave—I know that the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—up to a period of three months.
I have a constituent who is a baker and in pre-war days he and his brother and his mother used to run a bakery business in Eastbourne. His brother was called up and he was left alone to run the bakery business with the help of his mother, and he alone was responsible for baking the bread. At this stage I must disclose that my baker constituent has the name of Taylor, but as far as I know he is no relation of mine, and there is no special pleading. This baker came to see me in March last and I would like to read a brief extract from a letter:
In order to carry on the work of my mother's bakery business in which, until his call up my brother and I undertook the responsible and urgent operative work, I should be pleased if he could be given leave of absence over a period of several weeks to give me an opportunity to recuperate my strength following a period of ill-health and to ward off further illness and the risk of a complete break-down.
The brother of this baker is not what one would call, in the strict sense of the term, a fighting soldier. He is actually carrying on his bakery trade in the Army. He is a private, and not a very essential private, I should say, serving in the Army in this country. I advised the baker to write to his brother and ask him to submit an application for compassionate leave to his commanding officer, as I understand—and I think it is right—that when hon. Members get applications of this sort they should refer them to the commanding officer. But at the same time I did say that I would put in a plea for the civilian, that is the baker, still carrying on the business at Eastbourne, to the War Office supporting an application for compassionate leave for his brother. I wrote to the Parliamentary Private Secretary of the Secretary of State on 29th March, 1944, giving him full particulars of the case, and on 27th April, I received a letter from him turning down my request. I discussed it further with my constituent, and I re-

ceived a letter from him dated 6th May in which he writes as follows:
The letter from the War Office does not appear to take any account of the fact that the temporary release of my brother would enable me to have a long needed and medically advised rest. The medical certificate was forwarded at the request of my brother's commanding officer. One key-man temporarily replacing another key-man is somewhat different from the reason for refusal set out in the War Office letter.
The reason was that a man can be given compassionate leave to arrange for somebody to run his business but he cannot be given compassionate leave to run the business for a month in order to give his brother this medically advised rest. On 5th June I received a letter from the Parliamentary Private Secretary saying:
The report we have now received confirms that the soldier's brother and sister are still conducting the business and in these circumstances we do not consider the release of Private Taylor would be justified.
I had already pointed out that Private Taylor's brother was, in fact, running the business but he had been advised on medical grounds that, if he continued to do so and to work long hours in the bakery, he would break down and the business would break down with him, so I replied to the Parliamentary Private Secretary:
I have made it quite clear that Mr. P. S. Taylor is still running his bakery business, but, as I explained before, he is on the verge of a breakdown and has been informed by his doctor that unless he stops work and has a holiday, only for a month, serious consequences will result to his health.
Again I received a letter in reply to that on 26th June saying:
temporary release for a short period can only be authorised when a business in which the soldier has a direct and personal concern is in danger of being lost"—
I submit that is so—
to enable the soldier to make whatever arrangements are possible during the period authorised, and then only when there is no one else available to make arrangements.
But the point is that there is a shortage of bakers, they are very scarce at the moment——

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Pym. ]

Major Taylor: I do not believe there is very much difference between the case of a man asking for compassionate leave, to make arrangements for his business to be run, and the case of a man who asks for compassionate leave to run the business to enable his brother to have a month's rest. I see very little difference between those two cases.
Since I asked a Question about this case in the House, I was approached by a representative of the Ministry of Food in my constituency, who rather hinted that the Ministry of Food were somewhat indignant because my constituent had approached me and had not gone to the Ministry of Food first. That may have been my mistake. It may have been my constituent's mistake in not going to the Ministry of Food and asking them to back up his request. But the point is, I want to be absolutely certain that neither my baker constituent is being penalised because he did not go through the usual channels nor Private Taylor by reason of this being raised to-day. I take the view that it may have been my mistake or it may have been the baker's mistake in not getting the support of the Ministry of Food first, but, nevertheless, it should not go against him in any way because if we as Members of Parliament cannot say to our constituents, "Certainly you can come to us with your troubles without first submitting your case to the Regional Food Officer," or whoever it may be, then I think we are probably neglecting our duty.
As a last and final hope, I am asking the Financial Secretary to give way on this point. Why must you be so hidebound on the rules and regulations about the granting of compassionate leave? In the Financial Secretary's own statement he says that they should not be hidebound, and I submit that this is being hidebound because, in one case a man is given leave to make arrangements for his business to be run, and, in the other case, he is not given leave, although there is a shortage of bakers, to carry on the business for a month to enable his brother to have this well-earned rest. Finally, I would say this: it was suggested in this House at Question time by me that some of my constituents would suffer because their bread supplies would break down. I understand that is entirely wrong, and I apologise for making the mistake. I

understand that if this business is closed down, bread will be supplied from other sources, but that is no compensation for the business that is being closed down. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to give this case his sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would like to support what the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Major Taylor) has said. He has drawn attention to one case but there are many cases of this sort in my belief, cases which do not easily fit into one compartment. I have had one which I have been pursuing for months—not with the War Office —a case where a father who is a coal merchant has been told by his doctor that he ought to go to hospital for two or three months. In that case the son is in the Air Force on ground duties and the application for his release to carry on the business while the father went to hospital was supported, as one anticipated it would be, by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. In the end, however, after masses of correspondence, what has one found? It does not quite amount to a case for compassionate leave, it does not quite fit into the category for relief of the business on hardship grounds. And so the father is left to carry on his business, a business which is of great importance in that locality, when he ought to be in hospital receiving treatment.
He cannot get anyone else to carry on the business who knows the business, and it only means the release of the son for a short time. I am sure that Members could multiply these instances and that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne has done a very good service in drawing attention to the rigorous manner in which these Regulations are now interpreted. No one wants men to be released from the Forces on semi-bogus excuses, but there appears to be need for a more genuine understanding and appreciation of the situation which affects so many small traders and small business men of this kind. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to announce that the case raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and similar cases, will be reconsidered without delay.

Mr. George Griffiths: I want to put forward a case which appears to be harder than the case raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Mem-


ber for Eastbourne (Major Taylor), a case concerning which I do not seem to be able to break the ice or get through the door. It concerns a butcher, whose father died recently. His two sons are in the Forces, one in South Africa and one in Lincolnshire. The business has 800 customers. There is a daughter of 17 years and a widowed mother, who is broken down in health. This girl serves customers and drives a cart during the week to take out orders. I have asked that there should be in this case not only compassionate leave, but release. The lad writes to me and says, "My sister and mother cannot carry on much longer. Am I to write and tell my brother that the business will have to be handed over to somebody else, which will mean that there will be nothing to go back to after the war?" This man is not in the Army —he is in the Air Force—but I thought I would ventilate the case on this occasion. This girl of 17 is a brave girl. She is carrying on the business, and I think that in a case like this, the second lad, who is in the British Isles, should be allowed to return home. He would be serving his country, because he would have to serve 600 to 650 miners and their wives with butcher's meat. This lad was not called up so that somebody else could have his business. The Forces are far too stringent in these matters, and I would like them to be more sympathetic. When cases of this sort arise it does not do the Forces any good because the customers talk, the customers' relatives talk, and, in a population of 10,000 people, they all get to know about it. It is no credit to the Forces. I make my plea because I feel that it is necessary. I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for this golden opportunity to ventilate the case.

Lieut. Commander Joynson - Hicks: I should like to try to assist my hon. and gallant Friend on one point. I do not think the Financial Secretary will be able to establish that there is a hard and fast rule against the compassionate release of a member of the Forces when he requires to run a business himself. I have attempted to establish such a plea and have failed, but I also have attempted to establish it and succeeded. A constituent of mine aged about 43, who is C.3, got release. In private life he was a partner in a business with a turnover approaching £500,000 which was an essen-

tial war industry. He was released, and I believe that is a precedent for my hon. and gallant Friend's case. I hope the War Office will show that they regard these cases sympathetically and individualistically. We recognise the need for stringent control of the number of people who come out from the Army but there are hard cases and they should be looked at sympathetically.

Mr. John Dugdale: I think it is a very short-sighted policy to wait until a man breaks down and is in hospital for a long period, when a short period of a month's rest might, conceivably, cure him. We hear a great deal about the small man and his interests. It might well happen that in cases like this the small man may be swallowed up by a large firm, or a chain of bakers or butchers, and he may come back at the end of the war and find that this chain has established itself effectively and he cannot get back his business. I should however like to raise rather a different point. There are many people who will be very anxious to have compassionate leave and will be in need of it when their homes are bombed. I understand that, if a man is given compassionate leave, it is only to replace the privilege leave that he would have and, when he has finished his compassionate leave, he goes back to the bottom of the roster again. I see the point of that. You cannot give a man leave continually at the expense of other men, but there is a case for not putting him right to the bottom again, because he is not going to enjoy his leave very much. He is going to have a terrible time. When he goes to the bottom of the list he will wait perhaps for three months, until his ordinary privilege leave starts again, whereas if he had not gone it may be that he would be due for privilege leave a comparatively short time ahead. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will consider the position and see if some alteration can be made.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I agree, to a large extent, with what my hon. Friends have said and I equally agree that there are a great number of cases of hardship which must arise, but I hope the Financial Secretary will agree that, while we must have a number of bakers, we must, equally, have a few people in the Forces. Therefore the question I would ask my hon. Friends who have


raised these cases is what are the ages of the men concerned, whether they are married and whether they have any children. The point has also been mentioned that if compassionate leave is given and these people are released from the Army, someone else has to take their place. That ought to be said. I agree that there are a number of cases of hardship and I know of some myself, but I do not think it is a good thing to bring up individual cases on the Floor of the House. If any headway is made in cases in other divisions, however, I shall wish to make headway with some cases I have in mine.

Mr. Driberg: I do not think it is a wrong thing at all to bring up individual cases on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Bull: That is my opinion, at any rate.

Mr. Driberg: And I am expressing mine. One of the glories of this House is not only that great issues of policy can be debated, but that the humblest individual cases can be brought up. I am glad the hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne (Major C. S. Taylor) has raised this matter, because it is the kind of problem that bulks large in the correspondence of all Members. There is only one point I wanted to make. I do not think the hon. Member said anything about a medical report.

Major Taylor: Yes, I did; the medical certificate was sent to the commanding officer of the man in the Army.

Mr. Driberg: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I missed that opening part of his speech. It seems to me that if a medical certificate can be obtained certifying that there will probably be a serious breakdown in health of the person who remains to carry on the business, surely compassionate leave should be granted. He should not be obliged to wait until he has a breakdown and the service to the community performed by the shop is dislocated. It is my impression that the Air Ministry are perhaps somewhat more lenient in these matters than the War Office. I can think of one recent case that I know of in which the Air Ministry granted compassionate leave for a month in almost analogous circumstances, but

the business in that case was not a bakery but a public house. I was wondering whether the War Office and the Air Ministry could get together and make their procedure a little more uniform. Personally, I have had some good results and some unsatisfactory results from both. I do not think that we can ask for any general relaxation of the rules at this time, but I do think that the rules as they are might be interpreted with rather more generosity in cases such as that which has been raised in this Debate.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) indicated that there were large numbers of individual cases which come under the subject we are discussing now. I doubt whether there is any member of the Government who has had greater experience of the truth of that statement than myself. I feel I must enter a caveat with regard to his statement as to the comparative degree of sympathy extended by one Department as against another. I do not know to what extent my hon. Friend is correct in his reference to the generosity of the Air Ministry, but hon. Members who were present last week will remember that I gave some figures as regards the War Office, which I will give now for what they are worth. In the four months, March to June, 21,000 compassionate leave cases were dealt with where leave was granted. If that is averaged over the year, it amounts to a very respectable number.

Major Taylor: Short leaves?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, short leaves up to three months. One has to differentiate between compassionate releases and industrial releases and that is where my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) went wrong. He quoted a case which was very pertinent in regard to an application for release on industrial grounds. To-night we are discussing release on compassionate grounds, and therefore his case is not relevant. As regards the number, it was over 30,000 applications, and 21,000 of them were granted. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) thought we were interpreting these Regulations in a rigorous manner, but I hope he will agree with me that that was rather an extrava-


gant statement to make, in view of the facts.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not want to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend but I must point out that I did not say that the Regulations were being interpreted by the War Office in a rigorous manner. The case I cited was an Air Force case.

Mr. Henderson: I am sorry if I did not quite understand the hon. Member, but what I put down on my notes was: "interpretation of regulations in a rigorous manner." I may be a little prejudiced, but after my experience at the War Office for the last 2¼ years, I do not accept the view that the regulations, either in regard to industrial release or compassionate release, are interpreted in a rigorous manner at the War Office. My hon. Friend quoted my statement of last week in which I quite rightly said:
The essential in considering compassionate applications is that each case must be treated on its merits, and it is not possible to lay down hard and fast rules.
Later on, as he will see if he looks at HANSARD, I made a reference to cases where compassionate leave was required for business premises, and I went on to say:
The particular type of case in which compassionate release is granted, is where there is a business owned by the soldier in which he has a direct financial interest, and which is in jeopardy as a result of his absence in the Army and there is no one else to conduct it. In these circumstances, the soldier may be released temporarily."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1944; Vol. 401, c. 1705.]

Major Taylor: That is my case.

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would allow me to make my point. That puts rather a different complexion on the first quotation he made, in which I said that each case had to be treated on its merits. That is not inconsistent with the rule which in fact is the case, rightly or wrongly, that where a soldier seeks release on compassionate grounds for a short period of time, where it is a case of his desiring to assist in The conduct of a business, then it has not been the practice since this war began for the War Department to allow release on compassionate grounds for that purpose.
The most that can be done is, when a business in which a soldier has a direct

interest is in jeopardy, to authorise a short period of release, usually two, and in rare cases three, months, to give him an opportunity of making, within the time granted, whatever arrangements he can for its management by someone else during his absence on military service. That may be wrong, but that is the rule which has been operated during the whole of this war. Even there, release can be granted only if there is no other person available to make arrangements. I am not going to deny for one moment that in individual cases of small businesses it may have very unfortunate results.
But on the other hand one can well appreciate that if the rule were not there —one could not restrict it to small businesses, it might be that the number of applications for release in order to get key man or maybe a skilled worker, whatever the business may be—the War Office and the other Service Departments would be inundated with requests from employers for the release of key men in order to assist them to conduct their business.

Major Taylor: But this business is in jeopardy, and this man wants release for the period which the Financial Secretary specifies, to make arrangements for somebody to run it. He wants to make arrangements for his brother to go away for his medically advised rest and to come back to run the business. I see no difference.

Mr. Henderson: In this case, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, the soldier's brother and sister are carrying on the business, and it is considered that if the brother needs a rest he should to in a position to make arrangements for some one else to carry on the business while he is away. That seems to me quite a reasonable attitude, to take up.
The soldier is a young man of 23 and of medical category A1. It is also true, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, that he is serving in the Army Catering Corps, not in a front line unit. [Interruption.] I ought not perhaps to have said "not in a front line unit," because the Army Catering Corps are attached to front line infantry battalions. Those of us who served in the last war when there were many complaints about bad cooking do not object to the higher standard of cooking for fighting men. This has been


made possible by the Army Catering Corps personnel of which are in fact attached to front line infantry battalions, and the type of soldier in the cook house in the last war is a thing of the past, and I think we are all thankful that is so. So that there is the fact that this soldier cannot, in any event, under the rules as we operate them today, be released to run the business himself, but only to make arrangements for it to be run and as I said a moment ago it seems that the brother, and the sister for that matter, who apparently are not suffering from any possible illness, should be at least in as good a position to make arrangements for the business to be carried on as the soldier himself, even though they would not be able to run the business themselves.
I regret very much that I shall have to disappoint my hon. and gallant Friend, because I cannot give any under-

taking that in present circumstances there is any likelihood of his case being reconsidered and a decision being given that the man should be released for this purpose, having regard to the fact that it would be in flagrant breach of the rule, which I say has been operated through-out the war. There is one other point, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) raised, the question of the soldier whose house was bombed. I am not in a position to say whether he will be placed at the bottom of the leave roster. There is no doubt that he would get his compassionate leave. I will ascertain whether it is the practice to place such a soldier at the bottom of the leave roster and I will communicate the reply to my hon. Friend.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.